Will artificial intelligence be considered a patented inventor by the court?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is helping humanity find everything from new drugs to solving new mathematical problems, prompting courts to decide whether computers can be considered inventors.

Bob Bilbruck, CEO of technology consulting firm Captjur, told Lifewire in an email interview: “One day, someone or some company will have artificial intelligence that can invent. But artificial intelligence is just coding, like Like any other computer, it obviously relies more on human input."

Get smarter?

For example, Stephen Thaler, founder and chairman of the board of directors of Imagitron, LLC, claims that his DABUS system should be considered the inventor of a patent application covering a new type of food container with a specially patterned surface, and A light that flashes in a unique pattern, pulsing to draw attention in an emergency.
DABUS system stands for "Unified Scientific Autonomous Guidance Device."

However, Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore told the court that patent law defines an “inventor” as “an individual or a group of individuals.”

Nicola Davolio, CEO of Hupry, a privacy company that uses artificial intelligence, said in an email: "This decision has a significant impact on the corporate world because legal intellectual property is a multi-billion dollar industry. industry. The question of who owns the rights to an invention has important implications for how companies that fund R&D allocate resources in the future. If AI is legally recognized as an inventor, it could open up new areas of research and potential products for companies to develop and market."

Intellectual property law professor Alexandra George recently wrote in Nature that the ruling in the case could challenge legal precedent. “Even if it is true that the AI ​​system is recognized as the true inventor, the first big question is ownership. How do you determine who is the owner? The owner must be a legal person, and AI is not considered a legal person,” she said.

Thaler has been fighting the law in courts around the world. Last year, the Federal Court of Australia sided with Taylor:

"...Who is the inventor? If one is needed, who? The programmer? The owner? The operator? The trainer? The person who provides the input data? All of the above? None of the above? In my opinion, in some cases, it may be none of the above. In some cases, a better analysis... is to say that the system itself is the inventor. That would reflect reality".

Invention or imitation?

Davolio said that if the court rules that artificial intelligence can legally be listed as an inventor, this may mean that artificial intelligence entities can own and commercialize their own innovations to develop new and better ones for companies. AI technology provides important economic incentives. Additionally, it would give AI entities the ability to sue others for infringement of their patents, providing another way for companies to profit from AI technology.

In addition, Professor George believes that ultra-high-speed artificial intelligence may launch inventions faster than the patent court can keep up, and may also change the characteristics of the invention. According to generally accepted patent principles, when an invention is An 'inventive step' occurs when a person skilled in the art considers it 'non-obvious'. But artificial intelligence systems may have more knowledge and skills than any human on the planet. Ownership is an important part of intellectual property law, and AI inventors could stifle investment in new ideas.

What do you think about this?

The above is the detailed content of Will artificial intelligence be considered a patented inventor by the court?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!