Arrr! The UK Supreme Court be sayin' that them fancy contraptions o' artificial intelligence can't be called 'inventors'!
2023-12-20
Arrr! The Supreme Court o' Britain be decreein' that a clever Artificial Intelligence shan't be hailed as the inventor o' a patent, arguin' that only a human scallywag can hold that honor!
In a ruling that emphasizes the distinction between humans and machines, Britain's Supreme Court has declared that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be registered as the inventor of a patent. The court concluded that according to the current law, an inventor must be a person. This decision stems from a legal battle fought by American technologist Stephen Thaler, who sought to have his AI system, called DABUS, recognized as the inventor of two patents. Thaler claims that DABUS autonomously created a food and drink container as well as a light beacon, asserting his entitlement to the rights over its inventions. However, similar applications by Thaler have been rejected by tribunals in the United States and the European Union.The UK Intellectual Property Office rejected Thaler's application in 2019, citing the AI system's lack of personhood as the reason for its inability to be officially registered as the inventor. After lower courts upheld this decision, Thaler appealed to the Supreme Court, where a panel of judges unanimously dismissed the case. The judges emphasized that DABUS is not a person and did not devise any relevant invention.
Legal experts argue that this case highlights the need for updates to Britain's laws to keep pace with technological advancements. They point to the remarkable progress made by AI systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT, which can rapidly generate new poems, songs, and computer code. Nick White, a partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, acknowledges that as AI systems become more sophisticated, they have the ability to create new and non-obvious products and processes with minimal or no ongoing human input. However, he believes that any change in policy is likely to come from policymakers rather than judges.