Don’t worry, humans-artificial intelligence systems are not Has not yet taken over the world.them Can’t even appear as an inventor US patent.
U.S. Commonwealth Judge Leonie Brickma It was ruled this week that under current laws, artificial intelligence cannot be listed as the inventor of a US patent. Case filed Forward Stephen Thaler Artificial Inventor Project, An international initiative that believes that artificial intelligence should be allowed to be listed as an inventor in a patent (the owner of artificial intelligence will legally own the patent).
Taylor Sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office After he rejected his patent application, he listed the artificial intelligence named DABUS as the inventor of a new type of flashlight and beverage container. In various responses over several months, the Patent Office explained to Thaler that the machine does not qualify as an inventor because it is not a person. In fact, the agency believes that machines are tools that people use to create inventions.
Brikema affirmed that the Patent Office has correctly implemented the national patent law, and pointed out that this basically comes down to the daily use of language. In the latest revision of the National Patent Law in 2011, Congress clearly defined inventors as “individuals”. The Patent Law also uses words such as “his own” and “herself” to refer to inventors.
Brickma said in her ruling: “By using personal pronouns such as’himself or herself’ and the verb’believe’ in adjacent terms that modify’individual’, Congress clearly refers to a natural person,” edge“Because’there is a presumption that in the entire statute, the given term is used to mean the same thing, The term”individual’ is assumed to have a lasting meaning throughout the patent law. “
G/O Media may receive commissions
The judge also rejected Thaler’s statement that the Patent Office must provide evidence that Congress does not want to exclude artificial intelligence systems from inventors.
In addition, Brikema stated that the Federal Court has reviewed the nature of the inventor, and the court ruled that neither the company nor the state can claim to be the inventor of the patent.
As far as Taylor is concerned, he also tried to argue that the court should respect Congress’s intentions to establish a “Encourage Innovation. “
“The invention patents that allow artificial intelligence to produce will bring more innovation. It will stimulate the development of artificial intelligence that can produce patentable output by making the output more valuable…” Taylor said. “In contrast, refusal to patent protection for inventions produced by AI may undermine the patent system by failing to encourage the creation of socially valuable inventions.”
Nonetheless, Taylor was unlucky on this argument., anyone. Brikema said these are all policy considerations and must be dealt with by Congress, not by the courts.
And this is not to say that the Patent Office refuses to consider what role (if any) artificial intelligence should play in patents.It has requested comments on artificial intelligence in patent policies and reported that most Reaction reflects belief That current Artificial intelligence “can neither invent nor create without human intervention.”
Ryan Abbott, a law professor who oversees the Artificial Inventor Project, Tell Bloomberg The team will appeal. Although Brikema overturned all the arguments of the project, she did not say that AI can never be listed as an inventor.
“With the development of technology, artificial intelligence may reach a certain level of complexity to satisfy the recognized meaning of inventors. But that time has not yet arrived. If it does, Congress will decide how to expand the scope of the patent law, if any Words,” Brikema said.
