AI | AI: UK court rules on whether machines can be patented

Sci-fi movies continue to have disaster movie storylines in which machines and AI will surpass humans and even subvert human society in the future. Today, when machines and AI are increasingly used in global scientific and technological research and development, and the Metaverse emerges immediately, who should be credited for new inventions and creations? Can machines be patented? And other issues began to plague the relevant laws of various countries.

A recent ruling by the British Intellectual Property Office on whether artificial intelligence (AI also translates as artificial intelligence) systems can register new invention patents clearly states that any new invention patent should still belong to the creator of the AI system, not the AI.

"Artificial Intelligence Grabbing Jobs" British Screen Actors Union Calls for Artists' Rights Protection Can Computers Completely Simulate the Human Brain?
Artificial intelligence and the great power competition should be alert to possible misuses of AI. A recent industry consultation by the UK Intellectual Property Office found that most experts still question the current ability of artificial intelligence to invent and create without the direct help of humans.

The British government also stated that although existing laws allow humans to use artificial intelligence to develop new technologies and create inventions and register patents, people should not mistakenly believe that creations and inventions are entirely due to AI.

Last year, the UK Court of Appeal ruled against the application of Stephen Thaler, who argued that his Dabus artificial intelligence system should be regarded as the inventor of two patent applications:

A FOOD CONTAINER A FLASTER The judges voted in favor of the Intellectual Property Office by a 2-1 majority. The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler to list real people as inventors.

Laing, the female judge, interpreted in her ruling that "only human beings have rights, not machines."

"A patent is a legal right that can only be granted to one person."

But the UK Intellectual Property Office said people "need to understand that our intellectual property system should protect inventions made by artificial intelligence in the future" and to work to promote relevant international discussions to make the UK more competitive.

In July 2021, Thaler filed a lawsuit, an Australian court ruled that for the purposes of protecting patents, artificial intelligence systems may be identified as inventors. That ruling followed a similar decision in South Africa.

Many artificial intelligence systems are trained and learned through large amounts of data copied from the Internet.

On Tuesday (June 28) the UK Intellectual Property Office also announced plans to change copyright laws to allow anyone with legitimate resources, not just those conducting non-commercial Intelligent technology, broadening 'data collection' technology, serving the public good."

Patent owners will still be able to control the patents and charge a fee when their results are used, but they will not have to pay extra for developing capabilities.

Thaler recently sued the US Copyright Office for refusing to recognize a software system as the "author" of an image.

actor's livelihood

During the consultations, the UK Intellectual Property Office noted that the UK is one of the few countries that protects computer-generated works that do not have an inventor.

An "author" of a "computer-generated work" is defined as "a person who provides arrangements upon which the creation must be performed".

The term of protection for such works is 50 years after the creation of the work.

Performing arts workers' union Equity has called for copyright law to be changed to protect actors' livelihoods from the threat of artificial intelligence content, such as so-called "deep fakes" that create simulations of actors' looks and voices.

The UK Intellectual Property Office takes this very seriously, stating that "the impact of artificial intelligence technology on entertainers is unclear at this stage".

The agency added that "we will be looking at issues like this."