Artificial Intelligence systems are not able to patent inventions
because they are not human beings, a U.S. Federal Circuit Court has ruled
. File Photo by Willyam Bradberry/Shutterstock
Aug. 8 (UPI) -- Artificial Intelligence systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human beings, a U.S. Federal Circuit Court has ruled.
The ruling is against plaintiff Stephen Thaler, who brought the suit against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director Katherine Vidal
On more than one occasion, Thaler has attempted to copyright and patent the output of AI software tools that he created.
"The sole issue on appeal is whether an AI software system can be an 'inventor' under the Patent Act," Judge Leonard Stark wrote in the ruling, issued Friday.
"Here, there is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings."
Thaler serves as the CEO of Imagination Engines.
In 2019, he failed to copyright an image on behalf of an AI system. In 2020, the U.S. Patent Office ruled his AI system DABUS could not be a legal inventor because it was not a "natural person," with the decision later upheld by a judge.
The opinion isn't unique to the United States.
Both the European Patent Office and Australian High Court have recently issued similar rulings.
"The Supreme Court has held that, when used in statutes, the word 'individual' refers to human beings unless there is 'some indication Congress intended' a different reading," Stark wrote in the ruling.
"Nothing in the Patent Act indicates Congress intended to deviate from the default meaning. To the contrary, the rest of the Patent Act supports the conclusion that 'individual' in the Act refers to human beings."
Read More
Aug. 8 (UPI) -- Artificial Intelligence systems cannot patent inventions because they are not human beings, a U.S. Federal Circuit Court has ruled.
The ruling is against plaintiff Stephen Thaler, who brought the suit against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director Katherine Vidal
On more than one occasion, Thaler has attempted to copyright and patent the output of AI software tools that he created.
"The sole issue on appeal is whether an AI software system can be an 'inventor' under the Patent Act," Judge Leonard Stark wrote in the ruling, issued Friday.
"Here, there is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings."
Thaler serves as the CEO of Imagination Engines.
In 2019, he failed to copyright an image on behalf of an AI system. In 2020, the U.S. Patent Office ruled his AI system DABUS could not be a legal inventor because it was not a "natural person," with the decision later upheld by a judge.
The opinion isn't unique to the United States.
Both the European Patent Office and Australian High Court have recently issued similar rulings.
"The Supreme Court has held that, when used in statutes, the word 'individual' refers to human beings unless there is 'some indication Congress intended' a different reading," Stark wrote in the ruling.
"Nothing in the Patent Act indicates Congress intended to deviate from the default meaning. To the contrary, the rest of the Patent Act supports the conclusion that 'individual' in the Act refers to human beings."
Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment