Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Patents United Kingdom Technology

UK Argues AI Is No More of an Inventor Than Your Cat (bloomberg.com) 43

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
If an artificial intelligence machine can be named as an inventor for a patent, pet cats could be next, lawyers said at the UK's top court arguing only humans can be inventors in law. From a report: The UK's Supreme Court will decide whether an AI machine can be named as an inventor and who may own the patent. Imagination Engines founder, Stephen Thaler, challenged the rejection of his patent applications naming his AI machine as inventor for a beverage container and a flashing light. Allowing an AI machine to be named as the inventor can open doors to "plainly ridiculous assertion," Stuart Baran, a lawyer for the patent office, said in documents prepared for the case. Should the judges rule in favor of Thaler inventors could include "my cat Felix" or "cosmic forces," he said. Thaler tried registering the patent naming his system, DABUS, as inventor in several countries but was successful only in Australia and South Africa, according to the court documents.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Argues AI Is No More of an Inventor Than Your Cat More

UK Argues AI Is No More of an Inventor Than Your Cat

Comments Filter:
  • Have AI do all the work. You vet it. File the patent in your own name, without giving credit. Appropriate like a real Brit, gosh! /s

    • Re:Cultural Precedence (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:41AM (#63335775)

      This. I don't name my tools on patent applications. If I direct the tools to an outcome I am the inventor/designer/whatever.
      AI is a fancy tool, with a hefty possibility of obfuscated plagiarism under the hood. Don't treat it as anything fancier than that.

      • If your private AI is able to invent things a person of ordinary skill could not, then there is a good chance the AI is worth more than the inventions. If you're using a commonly available AI and not disclosing it, then the patent is vulnerable to attack as obvious, since anyone could type: "Turn salt water into gasoline invention" into the prompt to get the same invention.

        Without a bright-line rule requiring that inventors be human--and AI-like tools disclosed--AI will create big problems for patents and c

        • "into the prompt to get the same invention."

          Most of these large models are non deterministic.

        • What, many patents are just first to post, not brilliant innovation. Patents just stop all further development by other people. If an AI helps you develop a new drug first the patent can still be good. How can anyone prove that an army of grad students and not an AI did the research needed, pay stubs?
  • There should be no patents.

    In the context if patents, anyone who thinks AI can invent something doesn't understand what AI is.

    • There should be no patents.

      In the context if patents, anyone who thinks AI can invent something doesn't understand what AI is.

      Then perhaps the faulty premise is in humans, for attempting to label that thing "intelligence".

      Besides, we collectively killed the concern for what invented an idea when we started allowing patents to sit buried in war chests for years, only to be dusted off and used as a weapon for Greed while murdering Future Innovation.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      ... and doesn't understand what patents are

      If I infringe on the patent, will the AI sue me? Do I have to negotiate a license agreement with the AI? How will I pay the AI if I need to? Awarding a patent to something that is not a legal entity makes no sense.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )

      There should be no patents.

      In the context if patents, anyone who thinks AI can invent something doesn't understand what AI is.

      The real fault with the OP premise is that there is such a thing as real AI. What is called AI is typically just large data models with no real intelligence.

      • What is AI now and what is AI later may not be the same thing. It would be a shame if Commander Data couldn't get a patent because of a court decision about ChatGTP.

        • Don't base speculative laws on sci-fi

          If future AGIs invariably and unavoidably turn out to be pathological killers, you'd make a law then for the scenario then. Don't make a law for Commander Data and his daughter now.

  • AI should not be an inventor (Score:4, Insightful)

    by martiniturbide ( 1203660 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:50AM (#63335827) Homepage Journal
    Since the AI has no need to submit a patent, it should be only referenced as a tool that the inventor used.
    • The important and missing question here is why does he want his invention credited to an AI tool and not to him? Are their legal liability issues he's seeking to avoid by doing it this way?

      • Same reason Corporations in the US are legally defined to be a person. [wikipedia.org] To remove personal liability.

        To give some more context: For all intents and purposes a Corporation can't die and thus lose ownership. Technically, a corporation can lose its charter but given how some have lasted for hundreds [thecanadia...lopedia.ca] of years, the intent is that a company over time can become extremely wealthy since it pays no Estate Tax. (Before companies existed people would have a "Trust" own everything. Same deal.)

        I imagine the thought pro

        • Yeah that's what I was suggesting, although we can't know his motivations which is why I didn't directly assert anything. I believe patents are time-limited independent of their owner, so unless there's some issue surrounding liability for injury which isn't apparent I'd guess it's something to do with tax avoidance.
  • I've met a lot of inventive cats in my time. Sure, they can't sign anything without walking all over it after having trodden in ink, but I've seen some balls-to-the-wall solutions to specific problem domains coming out of cats, for what it's worth.

  • "Plainly ridiculous assertion"? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What's the problem with that? Patent world is already full of plainly ridiculous assertions, like that you can patent a rectangle with rounded corners, or that you can patent an invention without disclosing how it works. What's one more? Or should we invalidate all the other patents based on plainly ridiculous assertions too? (please say yes)
  • Is an AI-powered robotic surgeon subject to malpractice claims? Who is liable for a self-driving plane, train, car, bus, truck, rocket, etc., when it crashes and kills a bus full of nuns, children and puppies?
  • with many software authors, and whose ongoing operation is supported by many patreon donations, and is not ensured by a company.

    Imagine it is designed to find problems itself, whose solution through a new process or device would be of interest to people.
    It finds the problems by monitoring the world wide web and maybe the communicated content on some social media systems too.

    So it is turned on, and occasionally, of its own volition, spits out plans/designs for inventions to address the problems it has identi
  • If "AI" was intelligent, it wouldn't need to steal other peoples' work.

    • If human artists were intelligent, they wouldn't need to steal other peoples' work, either.

    • I take it you've never had it discussion about the creative process with a real-world inventor or engineer? All of the honest ones will tell you that something else in the world triggered their idea or insight. If you dig deep enough into your experience, you will find some experience or external knowledge that triggered your idea.
  • its a tool, its no more an inventor than grammar check or a hammer.
  • I assume Stephen Thaler knows what its tools are and what they are not. I don't know what he used, may be a LLM which is more or less a markov chain on steroid. In all cases, he just optimized some function with a neural network. Unless you are clueless(and he is not), you know these software don't have consciousness so his claim is just to get some buzz (it seems to work).

  • Obvious consequential extension (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Brandano ( 1192819 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @01:53PM (#63336447)

    Companies cannot file patents since they are not humans, and therefore patents should only be assigned to individuals and not transferable to companies.

  • As she tries to get at the keyboard to correct my code.

  • ...Back'o DABUS?

    My cat thought of that joke. Credit where credit is due.

  • Since most governments already accept the ludicrous doctrine of "corporate personhood" to shield the rich from the law, I have no doubt they will eagerly swallow AI personhood as well. At least right up until the moment it's inconvenient for the crooks they're trying to protect (such as if people started advocating "AI rights"), at which point exceptions will be introduced.

  • If a so-called AI invents something the patent belongs to whoever owns the AI.

    Alternatively: abolish government-granted monopolies on ideas completely. And if you think patents don't apply to ideas then you've not been paying attention for the last 40 years.

  • Elon Musk who was a proponent of AI admitted it is dangerous. He used AI to make his cars "self driving" and they were not and people died. AI is a useful tool for advertisers and political campaigns and the like so they can more easily find target audiences. People still have to program it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Close