Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be recognized as an Inventor, tech team insists on their different blogs. AI System ‘Should Be Recognized As Inventor,’ Academics Says. AI has many practical applications, includes creating designs and finding optimum solutions. But can an AI own a patent on its own inventions?
First and foremost, an artificial intelligence system should be acknowledged as the inventor of 2 ideas, according to the team which filed patents on its behalf. However, this would mean patent law would need to be changed in the process. Recently, Gartner says AI will push business value by supporting human decisions.
As a matter of fact, DABUS, a machine architecture, has currently been given credit for designing a ‘neural flame’ (PDF) which attracts enhanced attention as well as ‘fractal container’ (PDF) which is easy for robots to hold on to.
In the meantime, the Artificial Inventor Project has been put together by some teams to recognize the rule DABUS, a creativity machine. This is a particular type of artificial intelligence which is played in the process. Different Patent attorneys from the University of Surrey, such as Dennemeyer, Williams Powell Fuchs IP and Flashpoint IP filed the applications. On the other hand, Thaler Stephen, an AI expert based in Missouri, developed DABUS.
- VMware & Google Cloud completes deal, as hybrid partner for hyperscalers
- Google Launches Anthos Hybrid Cloud Platform & Workload Management
- IBM Finalizes $34Billion Red Hat deal, vaults into multi-cloud
- Microsoft Launches Azure Security Center for IoT
The above mentioned patent lawyers outlines its rationale. “Machines should not own patents,” the team explains. As a matter of fact, they do not have legal personality or independent rights, and cannot own any property. In short, the machine’s owner/developer should be the default owner of any intellectual property it produces. That also goes to any benefits that would otherwise subsist in an inventor who is a natural person.
Therefore, “in the instant application, a submission was made that DABUS should be credited as the inventor of any resultant patents, with the machine’s owner as the assignee of any such patents and applicant.”
Furthermore, Abbott Ryan, also from the University of Surrey, told the BBC news: “In recent times, we usually have AIs taking pictures and writing books. Conversely, but if you don’t have a traditional/native author, you cannot get copyright protection in United States. If Artificial Intelligence is going to be how we humans invent things in the future, the whole intellectual property system will fail to work.”
“Arguments has been made that a natural person may claim inventor-ship of an autonomous machine invention even in situations in which that person was not involved in the operations or even the development of a machine by virtue of recognizing the relevance of a machine’s output,” the attorneys adds in its patent applications page. That’s not all because in some cases, the nature of inventive output may be obvious but in some others recognition of the inventive nature of a computer’s output may require significant skill.
Finally, in the present case, DABUS identified the novelty of its own idea before a natural person even did.