(San Francisco) A US judge has ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot file for a patent, a topic hotly debated in tech circles due to advances in computer programs capable of learning and innovation.
Can an AI-based machine be an ‘inventor’ under patent law? […] The obvious answer is “no,” Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in Virginia Court in a decision released Thursday.
In particular, she argues, American law requires that an individual swear upon application, and that an individual is by definition a human person.
The complainants intend to appeal.
Ryan Abbott, director of the Artificial Inventor Project and attorney for Stephen Thaler, who filed a lawsuit against the Intellectual Property Office responded: “We believe that declaring AI as an inventor complies with both the vocabulary and intent” of US patent law. Attached to the Ministry of Commerce.
“This decision risks preventing the protection of inventions generated by artificial intelligence and differs from recent decisions by a federal court in Australia,” he added.
“This means that currently, patent protection for these types of inventions is only available outside the United States.”
The lawyer is leading an international battle to gain recognition that the computer can be considered innovative.
In South Africa, he successfully patented – for a food container – with the name DABUS, which is short for Device for independent booting of unified consciousness (Tool for an independent starting point for Unified Consciousness).
“Artificial intelligence created the invention, not me, so it would be inaccurate for me to register as an inventor,” says Stephen Thaler, the engineer who developed the machine called DABUS, which aims to invent things.
Artificial intelligence refers to self-learning programs, based on neural networks that attempt to simulate the way human intelligence works. It is used in particular to process mountains of data in record time.
Computer systems of this type are widely used in many everyday applications, from social networking to medical diagnosis, and are at the heart of technologies under development, such as self-driving cars.
But more and more fundamental questions are being asked in terms of responsibility.
In Australia, in early August, Judge Jonathan Beach declared that “only a human or legal person can be the owner or holder of a patent. […] But it is wrong to conclude from this that the inventor is necessarily human,” according to the intellectual property site ipwatchdog.
“Food trailblazer. Passionate troublemaker. Coffee fanatic. General analyst. Certified creator. Lifelong music expert. Alcohol specialist.”