EU Patent Office Rejects Two Patent Applications In Which An AI Was Designated As The Inventor

from the watch-this-space dept

We’ve written a bunch about why AI generated artwork should not (and need not) have any copyright at all. The law says that copyright only applies to human creators. But what about patents? There has been a big debate about this in the patent space over the last year, mainly lead by AI developers who want to be able to secure patents on AI generated ideas. The patent offices in the EU and the US have been exploring the issue, and asking for feedback, while they plot out a strategy, but some AI folks decided to force the matter sooner. Over the summer they announced that they had filed for two patents in the EU for inventions that they claim were “invented” by an AI named DABUS without the assistance of a human inventor.

And now, the EU Patent Office has rejected both patents, since they don’t have a human inventor.

The EPO has refused two European patent applications in which a machine was designated as inventor. Both patent applications indicate ?DABUS? as inventor, which is described as ?a type of connectionist artificial intelligence?. The applicant stated that they acquired the right to the European patent from the inventor by being its successor in title.

After hearing the arguments of the applicant in non-public oral proceedings on 25 November the EPO refused EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 on the grounds that they do not meet the requirement of the EPC that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine. A reasoned decision may be expected in January 2020.

Frankly, this is the right decision and its one that I hope patent offices around the globe recognize and continue to keep this line in place. I fear that this will actually kick off the process that comes to the opposite conclusion, and that patent offices will change the rules to allow for AI-generated patents.

The problem, yet again, is in people’s misguided belief that everything must be owned by someone, and that somehow without a patent it is impossible to successfully commercialize or market a product. There is tremendous evidence to the contrary (including just by looking at products after their patents run out — which is often a time when more innovation occurs, since there’s greater competition driving improvements). But, instead, you hear nonsense like the following from Prof. Ryan Abbott, who helped file the two now rejected patents, arguing that without patents, somehow these inventions might not come to be:

Abbott and his team believe that powerful AI systems could eventually find cures for cancer or find workable solutions for reversing climate change. ?If outdated IP laws around the world don?t respond quickly to the rise of the inventive machine, the lack of incentive for AI developers could stand in the way of a new era of spectacular human endeavor,? Abbott said.

But why? AI doesn’t need the monopoly control as incentive to create an invention. That’s not what motivates the AI. What’s wrong with just letting the AI come up with those cures for cancer and workable solutions for reversing climate change and just giving them to the world to make the world a better place?

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “EU Patent Office Rejects Two Patent Applications In Which An AI Was Designated As The Inventor”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JoeCool (profile) says:

Because

But why? AI doesn’t need the monopoly control as incentive to create an invention. That’s not what motivates the AI. What’s wrong with just letting the AI come up with those cures for cancer and workable solutions for reversing climate change and just giving them to the world to make the world a better place?

Because that doesn’t make corporations and their execs filthy stinking rich off the backs of other people who do the actual work. You’re requiring THEM to do the work instead.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JoeCool (profile) says:

Re: Because

Extended – lawyers want to buy an AI and then sit back while it generates patent after patent after patent, and then collect the rent while producing nothing. Why pay engineers/scientists an actual salary to (slowly) come up with patents when an AI can churn them out 24/7 without pay?

Anonymous Coward says:

So patents might be given to the person who writes the ai software,
a programmer has copyright on the code they write ,
theres no need for ai patent,s .
At this point we need less patents on software .
more patents = less competition and more power given to patent trolls,
ai is code , it needs no incentive to do anything.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Honestly, without money why would care?'

Abbott and his team believe that powerful AI systems could eventually find cures for cancer or find workable solutions for reversing climate change. “If outdated IP laws around the world don’t respond quickly to the rise of the inventive machine, the lack of incentive for AI developers could stand in the way of a new era of spectacular human endeavor,” Abbott said.

Kinda shot themselves in the foot there with a telling argument, as like it or not they basically said that unless there was a profit to be made they can’t imagine why someone would want to work on a cure for cancer and/or climate change. When trying to garner sympathy it helps to make arguments that aren’t blatantly sociopathic.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

That could be an entertaining counter-offer to make.

‘Patents can only be granted to beings classified as a ‘person’, which previously only applied to humans. If you want an AI to get a patent then we’ll grant it, alongside personhood, and now you get to deal with the fun of paying it and otherwise treating it as the equivalent of an adult human, as treating it as you currently do(no rights, no salary, considered company property) would fall right into slavery territory, which would not go well for you.

So, still want the AI to be granted that patent?’

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

“If outdated IP laws around the world don’t respond quickly to the rise of the inventive machine, the lack of incentive for AI developers could stand in the way of a new era of spectacular human endeavor,” Abbott said.

Isn’t that sort of like saying "if word processor developers can’t claim copyright on every document produced by word processors then there will be incentive for them to create word processors"

him says:

doh

Make "Making the world a better place." profitable, and the wealthy movers and shakers of earth will unite behind your banner and the earth will shine among the stars, making even the very gods jealous. But, until you do, all the Movers and Shakers are quite busy trying to become the first Trillionaire and to do that, it is absolutely necessary to exploit the earth and its populations in every possible manner imaginable. Sorry.

The 1%

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...