Under US law, an Artificial intelligence device cannot be registered as an inventor; Because he is not human.
You do not have to worry about the AI revolution against humans; Because he still can’t even claim a patent as an inventor in the United States.
- What is artificial intelligence? Everything we need to know about today’s mysterious and fascinating technology
Artificial intelligence cannot be an inventor
US Federal Judge Leoni Brikma issued a ruling this week that under current US law, an artificial intelligence cannot be named as an inventor. The case was filed by Stephen Thaler, a member of the Artificial Inventor Project. In fact, the project is an international initiative that argues that artificial intelligence should be allowed to register its name as an inventor and legally own it when registering a patent it has created.
According to Gizmodo, Thaler sued the US Patent and Trademark Office; Because he had rejected his patent applications. The reason for the rejection of the patents was that he had announced the artificial intelligence called DABUS as the inventor of a new type of flashing light and beverage container. The department sent various answers to Thaler for several months, explaining that the name of a device could not be mentioned as an inventor. In fact, the agency believes that the device is a tool that people use to create their patents and inventions.
Brikma found that the agency was enforcing patent laws properly. In the latest amendments to the Patent Act, Congress has explicitly identified the inventor as an “individual.” The law also refers to an inventor using words such as “himself / herself”. All this shows that the inventor must be human.
Thaler argued that the Patent Office should provide evidence that Congress did not want to exclude artificial intelligence systems from being inventors. Brikma also denied the allegations.
In addition, the judge stated that the nature of the inventor had already been examined in federal courts, and that they had declared that companies and states could not claim a patent.
Thaler sought to argue that the court should respect Congress’ decision to establish a system that “encourages innovation.” He says:
Patent creation created by artificial intelligence leads to more innovation. This increases the value of patents, encouraging the development of artificial intelligence capable of producing more patentable output. In contrast, failure to protect inventions created by artificial intelligence weakens the system.
But Thaler was not lucky in this discussion either. Brikma said this is a matter of political consideration; It must therefore be considered by Congress, and the courts have no right to intervene. Finally, it should be noted that the Patent Office does not intend to ignore the role of artificial intelligence in the production of new inventions.
Ryan Abbott, a law professor who oversees the artificial inventor project, told Bloomberg the group would reconsider. Brikma has examined all the arguments of the project; But he did not say that artificial intelligence can never be mentioned as an inventor. He says about this:
With the advancement of technology, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of complexity that can retain the accepted meanings of invention; But the time has not yet come, and if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how it intends to expand the scope of the patent law.
What do you think of Wironal companions? Will there ever be a day when artificial intelligence inventions can be officially used?