OK... if the machine is sold, the pat goes with right? and if the machine is broken does the pat go into public domain??
or does the PROGRAM own the patient???
then who owns the program????
Posted on 08/04/2021 3:39:07 PM PDT by algore
An Australian Court has ruled that a machine can be named as the inventor of a patent. The world-first decision answers a key legal question being tested in several countries, but raises many more for local inventors and the concept of creativity.
On Friday, the Federal Court ruled in favour of Dr Stephen Thaler, a US-based developer of Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) in his case against the Australian Commissioner of Patents.
The Commissioner had rejected Dr Thaler’s claim that his computer program is capable of independent invention and that it has devised several new inventions.
But in the first judicial determination in the world of its type, Australian Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach determined that an AI system can be named as the inventor of a patent.
However, he said an AI system could not be an applicant for a patent nor a grantee of a patent.
As the inventive capacity of AI evolves quickly, the question of whether the machines should be given patent protection has generated intense debate.
The Artificial Inventor Project (AIP), an initiative run by University of Surrey Professor of Law and Health Sciences Ryan Abbott, is testing the case. The AIP has filed patent applications in 17 countries, including the United States, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
In each jurisdiction, an application has been made naming DABUS as the inventor. Each has been rejected by patent offices, with the exception of South Africa, which granted the application through an administrative decision rather than a judicial one.
Dr Thaler sought a review of the decision by Australia’s patent authority, IP Australia, which rejected the application because it failed to name a human inventor.
But the Australian Patent Act does not define the term ‘inventor’, and the judge considered if the term had changed from its human conception.
P.S.
Does anyone remember the previous non human copyright case ?
Agreed. They didn’t think this one through.
Human institutions are for ... well, humans.
Abusing the language just like with gay "marriage" which had not been explicitly defined as man/woman because there was no need to.
A property right given to a non-biological/non-human entity?
This sounds fraught with stupidity and unanticipated consequences that is sure to be leveraged by evil humans.
For example, what if an AI algorithm designed by a machine (and which has the patent awarded to it) is used to generate information resulting in harm to humans.
A lawsuit for damages against a government or company could be dismissed by saying the patent holder is responsible.
I am not expert on this, but I know enough about human nature to know that there are malignant people who could and would find a way to use this stupidity.
OK... if the machine is sold, the pat goes with right? and if the machine is broken does the pat go into public domain??
or does the PROGRAM own the patient???
then who owns the program????
Article said the AI (1 or a 0 generator) is named “inventor” but can not apply or be granted a patent didn’t it? The AI was derived from written software so logic would dictate that the IT guy/ gal would get awarded the patent or group / company the developers worked for....
They say hard cases make bad law. But in this situation it is more like nut cases make bad law.
Commander Data, enter and sign in please.
That was a movie. In reality, there are no self-aware AIs.
You may be correct. I did not make the distinction between “Inventor” and “Patent Holder”, and that may make all the difference in the world.
But I don’t like it. It smacks of something to be abused by malignant intentions. No stone left unturned and all.
Of course not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.