The UK Supreme Court has ruled that AI cannot be a patent 'inventor'.
The UK Supreme Court has decisively ruled against granting AI the status of a patent 'inventor' in a landmark case. This ruling, rejecting the appeal of a U.S. computer scientist seeking to register patents for his AI system, DABUS, reinforces that, according to UK patent law, inventors must be natural persons, not machines.
Initially denied by Britain's Intellectual Property Office, Stephen Thaler's attempt to register these patents faced a unanimous setback.
Key Points:
The UK Supreme Court reaffirms the requirement, under UK patent law, for inventors to be natural persons, not machines.
A parallel decision in the United States, where the Supreme Court declined a challenge on AI-generated inventions, suggests a consistent global stance, though expectations of change loom with societal shifts recognizing AI as entities akin to real persons in the future.
Experts emphasize that, while the ruling may not significantly impact the current patent system, it underscores the necessity for future adjustments as AI technology evolves.
Why you should care: This ruling establishes a crucial precedent in the ongoing discourse on AI's role in creative and intellectual processes. It has the potential to shape future patent laws and determine the legal status of AI entities.
Do you think AI should be protected under copyright law?