In 2018, an AI system called DABUS (short for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”) created two inventions. DABUS was created by researchers to generate ideas and then determine which are the most novel, useful, or valuable. This resulted in DABUS creating two inventions without human intervention – an improved beverage container and a “neural flame” device used in search-and-rescue missions. The system creator Stephen Thaler filed patents for the inventions and listed DABUS as the inventor. However, his application was rejected.
Looking at the current law, the Patent Act refers to authors or inventors as patent owners. Only a natural person – so not a corporation or system – are described as possible inventors. Some academics believe that this law is outdated, and some courts agree with this. For example, Australian and South African courts decided that AI systems can be recognised as an inventor.
In the United Kingdom, a judge wrote: “In my judgement it is clear that, upon a systematic interpretation of the 1977 Act, only a person can be an ‘inventor’.” The United States court agrees with the current law, stating: “As technology evolves, there 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”.
What do you think, is AI developed enough to be the rightful owner of a patent, or do people need to keep the rights of intellectual property?
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58668534
https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2019/09/when-innovation-invents