AI can’t patent inventions in the US – for now

0
61

A court in Virginia has ruled that artificial intelligence cannot be credited as the inventor of a patent. However, some countries have ruled otherwise, leading to wider questions about the future of patents due to advances in artificial intelligence.

Can artificial intelligence be designated as the inventor of a patent? This question may seem absurd, or even pointless, but it raises a fundamental question for the future of patents.

Artificial intelligence is developing amazing capabilities and is used in much scientific research, sometimes to a greater extent than the actual study authors. So who should take the credit for any breakthroughs? Artificial intelligence, powered by algorithms and deep learning, or the scientists who put the machine on track?

Under US law, a computer using artificial intelligence cannot be listed as an inventor on patents – only a human being can claim to be an inventor. What’s more, individual inventors must swear an oath when applying for a patent under US law. So what if a machine is the inventor?

Stephen Thaler has designed one such “inventing machine” called Dabus, drawing on technology known as neural networks to generate so-called novel ideas by working together. The novelty of these ideas is then evaluated by another independent neural network, before selecting the potentially inventive and especially patentable ideas.

So what did this AI invent? So far, the patent attempts are based on two inventions – a light beacon to draw attention to a given location with a novel flashing pattern, and a drink container based on fractal geometry. According to the French-American mathematician who discovered this class of geometric objects, Benoît Mandelbrot, the simplest geometric characteristic of fractals is self-similarity: the shape is made up of smaller copies of itself.

Towards a reform of international patent law?

In Australia and South Africa, on the other hand, courts have ruled that patents in the name of artificial intelligence can be allowed. However, the Australian patent office has appealed the decision. Justice Jonathan Beach, of the Federal Court of Australia, ruled on the matter with the surprising remark: “We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?”

AI is increasingly involved in the work of researchers (especially in fields such as molecular biology, statistics, etc) – so much so that it might not be surprising if the inventions of the future were mostly created by machines rather than humans. The number of AI-related patent applications filed annually with the US Patent Office has increased from 4,598 in 2008 to 20,639 in 2018, according to a study published in 2020. Pressure on international patent law is therefore likely to increase in the coming years.

Back in the US, Virginia District Judge Leonie Brinkema said: “[T]here may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication such that it might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship. But that time has not yet arrived, and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law.” And that time may not be so very far away. – AFP Relaxnews



Source link