We will not be many years away from equipment and systems that make artificial intelligence arbitrary decisions. However, despite the quality and feasibility of the processes generated by the technology, the validity of these results may be less objective. An example now under discussion is the creation of AI-based patents.
A UK court The systems decided that Artificial intelligence companies cannot file or maintain patents because software is not human, so there are no human rights.
There is no right to artificial intelligence
This conclusion may be important to refer to some of the works that are said today for the genius of artificial intelligence. However, the decision of this UK court seems to have the support of many courts around the world.
An inventor, Stephen Doller, has repeatedly filed patents in the name of his AI called DABUS. He says this AI should be credited for the inventions he helped develop. But intellectual property and patent regulators disagree.
After Dollar refused to resubmit his patents in his real name, the UK Intellectual Property Office withdrew him from the registration process.
Not resigning, Dollar responded and took the intellectual property office to court. Presumably, the court dismissed his case. Dollar then appealed and lost again.
In her judgment against the appeal, Judge Elizabeth Loying stated:
Only one person can have rights ... A patent is a legal right and can only be granted to one person.
Patents must be human rights
There are patents to prove or deny that an invention or idea has been stolen by someone, thus protecting intellectual property (patents may also infringe on rights, but that is another conversation).
The inventor is not sure and wants to fight for his right to defend that he can create and own artificial intelligence patents. In fact, in his patent applications, he states that he owns DABUS AI and therefore must control its intellectual property.
This is still a case, and this matter is still being discussed lightly. Over time and with the advancement of technologies, we will notice that the discussion becomes more and more complex. However, for now and According to the judges, AI cannot hold patents..
“Reader. Infuriatingly humble travel enthusiast. Extreme food scholar. Writer. Communicator.”