Artificial intelligence

A long-running debate across the globe about how to handle computer-created innovation has witnessed a turn about. The US rulings stated that the computer which is using artificial intelligence cannot be listed as an inventor on patents. This was ruled by a federal judge in the first American decision saying that only a human can be an inventor.

In a ruled judgment of the U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia has said that the Federal law needs an “individual” to take an oath accepting that he or she is the inventor on a patent application. And the individual according to the dictionary and legal definitions means a natural person. 

The University of Surrey Law Professor, Ryan Abbott runs a project called The Artificial Inventor Project, which was launched as a global effort to get the computer listed as an inventor. And Abbott’s team enlisted Imagination Engines Inc. founder Stephen Thaler to create the machine whose primary purpose was just to invent. On the other hand, South Africa and Australia rulings have favored Abbott’s argument, even though the Australian patent office is appealing the decision in that country. 

Abbott’s in an email have respectfully disagreed with the judgment, planning to appeal it. “We believe listing an AI as an inventor is consistent with both the language and purpose of the Patent Act”, says Abbott. 

Artificial intelligence uses a machine to perform steps that imitate the work of a human’s mind at a great speed and also promises to transform everything from autonomous cars to drug discovery. 

Abbott and his team have put forward 17 jurisdictions across the globe listing DABUS, which was created by Thaler which is a creativity machine. It has invented a beverage container and a device for attracting enhanced attention. But the US Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the applications for not listing a person as an inventor and so Thaler appealed to the district court. 

The agency has taken inputs from many companies and individuals on how to address AI both as an invention and potential inventor and is also trying to fetch comments on how patent eligibility can have an impact on investments. From commenters, the agency noted that artificial intelligence is not that advanced to be an inventor. 

When the argument revolves around saying that the individual is a gender-neutral term, while others say that it specifies to be a human. Abbott says, “This decision would prohibit protection for AI generated inventions and it diverges from the findings of the Federal  Court of Australia. This means at present that patent protection is only available for these inventions outside the United States”. 

While Brinkema rejected the arguments of Abbott’s considering that allowing patents would create incentives for the development of artificial intelligence . She says that is up to congress and not to the courts.