- Reaction score
- 1,703
Up to this point, AI services have been used for "creating" visual hallucinations and uncanny images, persuasive fake news and questionable porn content. Someone is trying to establish AI as a proper "creator" of useful things, but the law has got in the way.
A new judgment from UK's Supreme Court is once again asserting that AI algorithms are not the same as humans, intelligent beings and that AI cannot be considered as a creator. The Court rejected a bid by US computer scientist Stephen Thaler to apply for patent registration for inventions devised by DABUS, a "creative machine" he conceived.
Thaler previously attempted to register DABUS as an inventor with the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), but the Office rejected his request stating that patents can only be assigned to humans or a company. Thaler's creative machine was seemingly instrumental in creating a new food container and a flashing light beacon back in 2019.
The Supreme Court is now restating the ruling by unanimously rejecting Thaler's appeal. Judge David Kitchin said that the case was not concerned with the broader question whether "technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable." Patents can only be assigned to human creators, and the inventor must be a "natural person" for a patent to be effectively enforced.
www.techspot.com
The same inventor has attempted to try patenting inventions devised by DABUS in the USA, and failed.
A new judgment from UK's Supreme Court is once again asserting that AI algorithms are not the same as humans, intelligent beings and that AI cannot be considered as a creator. The Court rejected a bid by US computer scientist Stephen Thaler to apply for patent registration for inventions devised by DABUS, a "creative machine" he conceived.
Thaler previously attempted to register DABUS as an inventor with the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), but the Office rejected his request stating that patents can only be assigned to humans or a company. Thaler's creative machine was seemingly instrumental in creating a new food container and a flashing light beacon back in 2019.
The Supreme Court is now restating the ruling by unanimously rejecting Thaler's appeal. Judge David Kitchin said that the case was not concerned with the broader question whether "technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable." Patents can only be assigned to human creators, and the inventor must be a "natural person" for a patent to be effectively enforced.
UK Supreme Court rules AI cannot be recognized as an inventor in patent case
A new judgment from UK's Supreme Court is once again asserting that AI algorithms are not the same as humans, intelligent beings and that AI cannot be...
www.techspot.com
The same inventor has attempted to try patenting inventions devised by DABUS in the USA, and failed.
