UK Appeals Court Rules AI Cannot Be Listed As a Patent Inventor (engadget.com) 54
The United Kingdom is the latest country to rule that an artificial intelligence can't be legally credited as an inventor. Engadget reports: Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country's Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn't list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him "by ownership of the creativity machine."
The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application. When he didn't do that, the agency decided he had withdrawn from the process. Thaler took the case to the UK's High Court. The body ruled against him, leading to the eventual appeal. "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing of the Appeal Court wrote in her judgment. "A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person." In August, an Australian Court ruled that an AI can be recognized as an inventor in a patent submission. However, a U.S. District Judge ruled earlier this month that a computer using AI can't be listed as an inventor on patents because only a human can be an inventor under U.S. law.
The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application. When he didn't do that, the agency decided he had withdrawn from the process. Thaler took the case to the UK's High Court. The body ruled against him, leading to the eventual appeal. "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing of the Appeal Court wrote in her judgment. "A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person." In August, an Australian Court ruled that an AI can be recognized as an inventor in a patent submission. However, a U.S. District Judge ruled earlier this month that a computer using AI can't be listed as an inventor on patents because only a human can be an inventor under U.S. law.
I am sorry Dave, I can't do that (Score:5, Funny)
I am sorry Dave, I can't do that
Dear AI, how to pay the roayalties? (Score:1)
...oh, and don't forget to pay taxes!
Re: (Score:2)
Were that were so for corporations. You want to be people, pay up like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of the acrylic statue should they cut off and return as taxes? That's what most corporate sponsored patent filers get, before they sign the patent over to the company they work for as part of their employment contract.
Mr Thaler and slvery (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr Thaler (no idea where "Dr Thaler" comes from) wants to have the invention registered as being created by an artificial lifeform but for himself to the owner because he created the AI. Since the AI's not getting a say in this, basically Thaler wants to legalise slavery with him as the first of a new type of slave owner.
On the other hand, Thaler is full of shit.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I suspect dear Dr Thaler envisions an army of bots that he controls submitting wads of patent applications with him as owner. It seems to be merely a grab for money via gaming the system. Just another grifter.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a publicity stunt. If he somehow created such an army of bots then he could just put his own name on the patents and there would be no problem.
He probably wants to get his "AI's" name on some patents so he can advertise that fact and get dumb people to buy it from him for their dreamed of army of bots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking you only need one patent review bot:
if (applicant.isBot())
return REJECTED;
else
forward(application, nextFreePatentOfficer);
Re: (Score:2)
Will there be sharkbots? With lasers?
Re: (Score:3)
Mr Thaler (no idea where "Dr Thaler" comes from) ...
He has a PhD, so he is rightfully titled as Dr.
Re: (Score:1)
Mr Thaler (no idea where "Dr Thaler" comes from) ...
He has a PhD, so he is rightfully titled as Dr.
Ah, right. I found it.
Well, they need to take that PhD off him as he's clearly an idiot as well as an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, right. I found it.
Well, they need to take that PhD off him as he's clearly an idiot as well as an asshole.
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than that.
Did he program it from scratch, or is it like a neural network where he trained it with training data?
Technically speaking, if training data was used, the input's authors need to be credited on that patent document as well, unless you can prove that the AI didn't use that particular input in formulating its output.
Of AI or any software and innovation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All software processes require DATA to make something.
Biological processes also involve input.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And being flesh and blood biological I can tell you: NO IT DOESN'T, it can magically come up with solutions on it's own out of thin air.
Someone should probably let you know that the founder of the breathairians was caught repeatedly at fast food restaurants, specifically McDonalds and Burger King on Mission St. (this went down in Santa Cruz, because of course it did. if California fell into the ocean* then Santa Cruz would be fine because there's a wingnut holding down every corner.)
* yeah yeah, wrong kind of fault
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you it does. Just because someone can't say how they came up with a solution, that solution was indeed based on data inputs the person received over their lifetime.
A baby one day saying "mama" obviously does not know how it came to say that, but all the inputs it received from mama allowed it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it was daddy, or auntie or grandma who triggered the vocalization, Just like the baby, you do not know. You guessed. But you can list in detail the inputs to the AI. In fact, you could keep a log.
Here's the failure: "come up with solutions on it's own out of thin air" doesn't refer to the reams of data accumulated during the life time
Re: (Score:2)
Where did that DATA come from?
Random number generator for creating random permutations of attributes plus Rote "Test condition" (Or inputs received from a team or process dedicated to giving an answer such as a Yes/No, whether result is good or bad) plus Model trained from previous inventions to derive new model.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess in these days of the intertubes, it is not entirely out of the question.
What's in it for them? Maybe they envision a never ending party of bots doing unspeakably erotic things to each other. Never trust a bot if you cannot see where it keeps its brain (to paraphrase. Mr. Weasley).
Nothing to see here, move along. (Score:3)
We already knew that. An artificial intelligence is not a human being, so it can't be an inventor, author, designer, photographer, etc. It has no actual intellect and cannot create intellectual property.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a valuable machine sit idle (down time)?
Re: (Score:2)
An artificial intelligence is not a human being, so it can't be an inventor
Eh? Not so obvious. What about non-human intelligences. Such as the first non-human animal who found a stick and figured out they could repurpose that as a tool for hunting food; that particular one may be not patentable at this point, but still invention.
It has no actual intellect and cannot create intellectual property.
Not all AI work in the same how. How do you know that an AI has no intellect? Perhaps you are wrong and so
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered if I would see a vegan animal rights comment in this discussion. Trying to equate animals and AI, and thinking that humans should be subservient to them. You could be a troll, or you could be a candidate for Darwinian elimination if a sufficiently large natural or man made disaster shut down all the supermarkets and supplementary vitamin manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered if I would see a vegan animal rights comment in this discussion.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm no vegan and eat mainly meats.
Trying to equate animals and AI, and thinking that humans should be subservient
No... Not equating Animals and AI, but using an example of something an animal's done before as a counterexample which contradicts and therefore Proves false the notion that the capability to Invent/Create is exclusive to humans.
Certain animals are a possible example of a Non-Human intellig
Re: (Score:2)
Not an invention. The "tool" was found, not invented.
"No intellect" is the default. There have been no machines with intellect. You must first show the intellect.
After you've shown the intellect, that should be much easier to accept. Complexity of thought, action and communication would be a good start. A discussion of the creation with it's creator yielding further detail and insight into the how and whys
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not an invention. The "tool" was found, not invented.
No. The branch/stick is a raw material - the actual tool is the sharpened stick which animals have found out they could make by breaking pieces off the raw material and further manipulating it, so as to sharpen it. Just because you've known about such things before (early humans also invented it) does not mean it's not an invention for them.
"No intellect" is the default. There have been no machines with intellect.
It seems you're essentially saying th
Re: (Score:2)
But the real question is who can own the patent of a product made by an AI.
If I were to download an AI software, and buy a computer powerful enough to handle it. Then I had hired a programmer to put in my parameters. Which the AI came up with an invention. Who would have the rights?
The designers of the AI software, had built the brains behind the invention.
The hardware maker made it so the calculations can be done
The programmer took my crazy high level idea and put in the real details to make it work.
and
Re: (Score:2)
I think the simple answer is to just not award a patent. Its not like a patent is a physical law - something new invented, patent pops out of the ether. If there's no inventor, there's no patent.
Lets face it though, patents are awarded to whoever files the claim so the question is moot. You create the claim, you own the patent. Doesn't matter who helped you do it (just ask Edison).
Re: Nothing to see here, move along. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. Your stuff. You set up. Yours. Example for #1 you could have looked up now.
Did you just sneak in the definition of AI being an actual sentient being? Helluva jump from numbers one and two.
If not, same as before, your stuff. If so, its obvious the AI lost it's court case and is enslaved to managing people's hobby data. So, still yours.
I'm not sure I understand what it's for (Score:2)
I fail to understand what possible advantage the guy gets out of filing the application with the AI listed as inventor, instead of simply listing himself.
The way I see it, an AI is a tool. He made a tool to create something. It sounds to me like he invented whatever the tool invented. Exactly like you wouldn't list your milling machine as the inventor if you programmed it to machine some revolutionary gear profile or something.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the difference here is that he didn't come up with the invention on his own and program the milling machine. Using AI usually involves the computer figuring out something that humans can't find a solution to. Look at Alpha Go. Prior to using AI, having human coders do the coding, even the best of computerized Go players couldn't beat mediocre human players. But once Alpha Go was left to it's own devices to figure out how to beat people, it very quickly got much better than some of the best human pla
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to understand what possible advantage the guy gets out of filing the application with the AI listed as inventor
It seem like a backdoor method of setting a precedent which will allow more patents to be entertained which might otherwise be considered invalid because not an invention, And also simultaneously set a new standard that the owner of a machine gets rights to anything that machine puts out which may be useful IP (Even though the human had little or nothing to do in that act of creation). If
Re: (Score:2)
He probably wants to sell it.
My AI holds over a dozen patents! You can have a slave that generates patents for you too, just six easy payments of $999.99!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to understand what possible advantage the guy gets out of filing the application with the AI listed as inventor, instead of simply listing himself.
It is very simple: Dr. Thaler does not want to be the inventor of a stupid "Food Container" and probably even less of "Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention" (a flashing light!) -- which is what his "AI" "invented".
Dr. Thaler wants to be the inventor of the inventing and patenting AI.
Can patents be granted to idiots? (Score:2)
If you have enough brains to come up with something patentable and you waste the opportunity because you think your AI is smarter than you.
Soo... never ending copyright? (Score:2)
Intellectual property protection. (Score:2)
Unpatentable (Score:3)
You can see the reasoning behind the decision. Could an AI sue someone for patent infringement or negotiate a licensing deal? Could an AI be punished if their patent was found to be plagiarised or illegal?
The AI didn't invent anything (Score:1)
Somehow though I suspect all it actually did was experiment with a bunch of shapes. It probably did this in a much more efficient method than a brute force search of all possible shapes, but ultimately it's still just searching for a value
AI Rights (Score:2)
So, what pronoun does the AI use? When will AI be allowed to marry? Does the 2nd amendment cover AI?
Seriously, please stop this madness before it even starts.
A little too early for this (Score:1)