Now, a court is set to decide whether the computer can be considered an inventor.
A computer scientistrecently arguedthat his AI system should be credited for two inventions it generated.
The case could have wide-ranging implications for patent law, but experts are skeptical of the claim.
Yuichiro Chino / Getty Images
Get Smart?
The DABUS system stands for “unit for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science.”
Intellectual property law professorAlexandra Georgerecently wrote in the journalNaturethata ruling in the case could challenge legal precedents.
Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images
How do you work out who the owner is?"
Thaler has been fighting his legal battle in courts around the globe.
Last year, the Federal court of Australia sided with Thaler.
“… Who is the inventor?
“the court wrote.
“And if a human is required, who?
The person who provided input data?
All of the above?
None of the above?
In my view, in some cases, it may be none of the above.
In some cases, the better analysis… is to say that the system itself is the inventor.
That would reflect the reality”.
Invention or Imitation?
Superfast AI might pump out inventions faster than patent courts can keep up, George said.
“It might also change the character of the invention,“George wrotein an article inThe Conversation.
But an AI system might be more knowledgeable and skilled than any one person on the planet.”
Ownership is a crucial part of intellectual property law, George said.
AI inventors could stifle investment in new ideas, she added.
“Is it a person who has bought the AI and trained it for their own purposes?
