Supreme Court rules: AI cannot be considered a 'creator'

The British Supreme Court ruled on December 21 that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be listed as an inventor in a patent application. The decision could have a major impact on the use of artificial intelligence tools

The ruling is based on two patent applications filed in 2018 by Stephen Thaler, one for the shape of food packaging, The other was a flashlight. Thaler did not list himself as the inventor, but credited the inventions to the artificial intelligence machine "Dabus". He then made it clear that he had a personal interest in the patents, namely ownership of the "Dabus Creativity Machine". The initial response from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) was that they believed Thaler had not complied with the patent regulations. , because he did not name a natural person as the inventor and did not explain how he obtained ownership from that person (in this case, the AI). Thaler has appealed the ruling, insisting that he qualified All claims under the Patent Act 1977 were rejected. He subsequently appealed to the British High Court and the Court of Appeal, both of which also rejected his claim and denied that artificial intelligence can be listed as an inventor

On Wednesday, the British Supreme Court in a judgment pointed out that they did not make specific rulings on the broad issues of whether technological advances created by artificial intelligence tools and machines should be patented, and whether the meaning of the term "inventor" should be expanded

However, the UK The Supreme Court found that under current patent law, a person designated as an “inventor” must be a “natural person.” The Supreme Court also rejected Thaler’s argument that “based on his ownership of DABUS, he had the right Submit applications and obtain patents for the inventions described and disclosed in each application.” The reason is also that a patent application must list an inventor, and that inventor must be a natural person

According to the instructions of the Supreme Court, Mr. Thaler has made it clear that he is not the inventor. His case was that the invention described was made by DABUS. He was granted patent rights for the inventions because of his ownership rights in DABUS. Thaler's lawyers said in a statement that the judgment "shows that current UK patent law is unable to effectively protect artificial intelligence machines." Self-created invention."

Thaler has filed a similar appeal for the same product in a U.S. court, which has also ruled that a patent must be applied for and owned by a human inventor

In electronics In email comments, Tim Harris, a patent litigator at law firm Osborne Clarke, said: “Although artificial intelligence and its achievements are increasingly susceptible to anthropomorphism, the UK Supreme Court emphasized that Patent law requires that the recipient of a patent must be a natural person."

Harris continued: "If in the Thaler case, he is the inventor and uses DABUS as a highly sophisticated tool, then the lawsuit The outcome may have varied. However, the Supreme Court was not asked to rule on this issue, nor on the broader implications of whether technological advances resulting from autonomous action by artificial intelligence should be patented."

The above is the detailed content of Supreme Court rules: AI cannot be considered a 'creator'. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!