from the AI-does-everything-better-than-humans dept.
AI computers can't patent their own inventions — yet — a US judge rules
Should an artificially intelligent machine be able to patent its own inventions? For a US federal judge, the larger implications of that question were irrelevant. In April 2020, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that only "natural persons" could be credited as the inventor of a patent, and a US court decided Thursday that yes, that's what the law technically says (via Bloomberg).
Not every country agrees with that direction. South Africa and Australia decided to go the other direction, granting one patent and reinstating a second patent application filed by AI researcher Steven Thaler, whose AI system DABUS reportedly came up with a flashing light and a new type of food container. Thaler is the one who sued the US in this case as well — he's part of a group called The Artificial Inventor Project that's lobbying for AI recognition around the globe.
On a patent application doesn't the inventor have to swear they invented it? [602.01 Naming the Inventor]
Related Stories
The UK's Intellectual Property Office has decided artificial-intelligence systems cannot patent inventions for the time being:
A recent IPO consultation found many experts doubted AI was currently able to invent without human assistance.
Current law allowed humans to patent inventions made with AI assistance, the government said, despite "misperceptions" this was not the case.
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled against Stephen Thaler, who had said his Dabus AI system should be recognised as the inventor in two patent applications, for:
- a food container
- a flashing light
The judges sided, by a two-to-one majority, with the IPO, which had told him to list a real person as the inventor.
"Only a person can have rights - a machine cannot," wrote Lady Justice Laing in her judgement.
"A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person."
But the IPO also said it would "need to understand how our IP system should protect AI-devised inventions in the future" and committed to advancing international discussions, with a view to keeping the UK competitive.
Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
Previously:
When AI is the Inventor Who Gets the Patent?
AI Computers Can't Patent their Own Inventions -- Yet -- a US Judge Rules
USPTO Rejects AI-Invention for Lack of a Human Inventor
AI Denied Patent by Human-Centric European Patent Office
The USPTO Wants to Know If Artificial Intelligence Can Own the Content It Creates
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Asks If "AI" Can Create or Infringe Copyrighted Works
'There is no ambiguity,' says judge:
The US federal circuit court has confirmed that AI systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human beings.
The ruling is the latest failure in a series of quixotic legal battles by computer scientist Stephen Thaler to copyright and patent the output of various AI software tools he's created.
In 2019, Thaler failed to copyright an image on behalf of an AI system he dubbed Creativity Machine, with that decision upheld on appeal by the US Copyright Office in 2022. In a parallel case, the US Patent Office ruled in 2020 that Thaler's AI system DABUS could not be a legal inventor because it was not a "natural person," with this decision then upheld by a judge in 2021. Now, the federal circuit court has, once more, confirmed this decision.
[...] The Patent Act clearly states that only human beings can hold patents, says Stark. The Act refers to patent-holders as "individuals," a term which the Supreme Court has ruled "ordinarily means a human being, a person" (following "how we use the word in everyday parlance"); and uses personal pronouns — "herself" and "himself" — throughout, rather than terms such as "itself," which Stark says "would permit non-human inventors" in a reading.
[...] According to BloombergLaw, Thaler plans to appeal the circuit court's ruling, with his attorney, Ryan Abbott of Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP, criticizing the court's "narrow and textualist approach" to the Patent Act.
Previously:
UK Decides AI Still Cannot Patent Inventions
When AI is the Inventor Who Gets the Patent?
AI Computers Can't Patent their Own Inventions -- Yet -- a US Judge Rules
(Score: 4, Insightful) by coolgopher on Saturday September 04 2021, @06:30AM (1 child)
Teaching AIs to swear is generally as easy as giving them access to the internet [bbc.com]...
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday September 04 2021, @12:13PM
C'mon, everyone knows that. The first thing everyone learns to do in a foreign language is to swear like the proverbial sailor.
Even people who have no idea about Russian know what блядь means. At least no later than when you transliterate it and write blyad.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 04 2021, @08:25AM (5 children)
The case has already been resolved, then -- AI cannot have any rights. Only "Natural People" can have rights. Therefore, it's well within the right of robot owners to destroy their property.
Then again, it's up to an act of Congress to revoke rights from the people. Say this could be modified at a later date?
(Never mind that this isn't AI, but pattern-classification, but then you could say that it always will be.)
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday September 04 2021, @12:15PM (4 children)
Well, there are certain limitations to what you can do to animals, and while they cannot own themselves and have to have a human owner, that owner cannot just destroy them at will, usually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 04 2021, @06:42PM (3 children)
Unless it is a protected species, "I don't want it anymore" is all the reason the owner needs to put it down.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Sunday September 05 2021, @11:21AM (2 children)
It seems that there isn't as much difference between humans and animals as we thought: Your life expectance depends a lot on the country you live in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 05 2021, @02:06PM (1 child)
It does and where in the country you live. Around here you can destroy pets for any reason, or no reason, but it has to be done humanely. That last bit is the part most likely to lead to restriction over time as the standards for humane change. So stomping on a hamster is illegal, but injecting them with drugs to put them to sleep would be legal. You may, however, have some issues getting a vet to do it, if the animal is healthy though.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday September 06 2021, @08:09AM
IIRC it's not legal here for a vet to kill an animal if the animal is healthy. But I know for a fact that you must not kill a vertebrate unless you're a vet or butcher, and they have to do it in a way that is least stressful for the animal and/or as fast as possible, without cruelty and unnecessary suffering.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Dr Spin on Saturday September 04 2021, @10:59AM
America is not the only jurisdiction in the world with a patent system.
Some people have fought for and achieve independence.
(I refer the honourable gentleman to Afghanistan).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Saturday September 04 2021, @12:29PM (1 child)
There is only one reason to allow "AI" to patent inventions - so some holding company can spam the fuck out of the patent system without having to pay a cent to an actual person when they go knocking on doors suing people for "infringing".
I bet SCO wishes they had thought of that.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 04 2021, @12:56PM
All the more reason to radically reform or just abolish the patent system. Currently, it's far too restrictive. Too much "mother may I?" All this permission seeking that's required, and what for? Need ways to compensate inventors without giving them veto powers over usage, either by decree or in effect by allowing them to name their price, no matter how unreasonably high. Need to acknowledge that similar inventions can be independently made, and knowledge independently rediscovered. The whole system is based on flawed ideas and conceits, and irrational fear of loss.
One of the terrible things about the current system is the huge, huge burden implicit in making sure that you haven't infringed any of the millions of current patents. It's a rabbit hole with no bottom. No one operates that way. Except the courts take this attitude that if you're being sued for infringement, it was very naughty of you to deprive the inventor, or more like troll, of the mere potential to make millions, as if you should have done a search and should have known. Instead, you go ahead with your work, and hope few to no patent holders surface to claim that you're infringing. You file defensive patents. If you're big, you even sign agreements with large patent holders. And pool your patents. Another popular way is to just wait 17 years, for expiration. Takes a lot of effort and costs plenty to work around the system.
An AI spamming the system could work to our benefit, by causing so much trouble it forces reform.