Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 07, 2021

AI systems cannot be granted patents and will not be recognised as inventors in the eyes of the US law, said a federal judge who decided to uphold a previous ruling by the US Patent and Trademark Office this week.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

..."There is no statute or case that has found an AI-generated invention cannot be patented, or that holds an AI cannot be listed as an inventor," Thaler's lawyers argued [PDF] in his lawsuit.

"Rather, any discussion of inventors as natural persons has been based on the assumption that only a person could invent, or to prevent corporate and sovereign inventorship at the expense of a human inventor."

But Judge Leonie Brinkema disagreed, and sided with the patent office's current director Drew Hirshfeld [PDF], ruling that the law states "individuals" must take an oath to swear they are the inventor on a patent application. These individuals must be natural persons, which computer software is not....

Update, 23:30PM UTC, September 5th. Australian authorities have announced they will appeal the decision and seek to overturn it....


More details in the cited article...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-06 08:32 PM | Reply

Correct ruling.

#2 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-06 08:57 PM | Reply

#@2

My view as well.

It seems the current legislation requires an individual to be the inventor.

So until AI is given "person" status, AI cannot be an inventor.

However, Citizens United gave person status to corporations (many of which seem to have little intelligence, artificial or otherwise [but I editorialize]), so can AI be far behind?



#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-06 09:27 PM | Reply

However, Citizens United gave person status to corporations ...

No, it did not. The "Dictionary Act" did that by statute. www.law.cornell.edu

It's history dates to 1871. www.linkedin.com

The Supreme Court's reference to corporations as persons dates as far back as 1819. en.wikipedia.org

Citizen United said nothing on the subject of corporate personhood.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 10:41 PM | Reply

@#4

Many thanks for the correction.

My view is that the decision gave First Amendment rights to corporations. And from that I extrapolated the "person" aspect.

So where did I go astray? In the extrapolation?

thx.


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-06 10:53 PM | Reply

My view is that the decision gave First Amendment rights to corporations.

All Citizens United did was established that Congress can't prohibit "independent expenditures" on political speech by corporations i.e. how a corporation spends its own money on political speech as opposed to donations to candidates and their campaigns which is subject to regulation.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-06 11:48 PM | Reply

@#6

As always with your comments, thank you for your erudite opinion(s).

But your comments always seems to be so, ummm, constipated..

They seem to be laser-focused on answering a part of a comment, but leave other parts just hanging there.

Can't you just loosen up a bit? Fer us? :)

(even if you have to append multiple lines of legals disclaimers that the end of your comments)

:)

(see, a happy smile.)





#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-07 12:47 AM | Reply

So why is a corporation a person, but an AI is not?

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-07 01:50 PM | Reply

AI doesn't, currently, have the $ to give to politicians.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-07 01:54 PM | Reply

Actually the Court said, in Citizens United, that ONLY Congress could prevent the outright corruption that would result if unlimited money coming from unknown sources was allowed to underwrite the campaigns of politicians. They ruled as they did because there were NO laws preventing political donations by corporations. In fact, the court was very worried that if Congress did nothing that there would be no way to stop the outright purchasing of politicians by individuals and groups who were allowed to remain anonymous. Of course, the Republicans never allowed Congress to come close to outlawing 'dark money'.

As for the topic of this thread, I agree, keep patents in the hands of those who actually have hands, and this from someone who's a co-inventor on TWO US Patents.

OCU

#10 | Posted by OCUser at 2021-09-07 02:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort