<
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210801/00400547281/australian-court-ridiculously-says-that-ai-can-be-inventor-get-patents.shtml>
"There have been some questions raised about whether or not AI-created works
deserve intellectual property protection. Indeed, while we (along with many
others) laughed along at the trial about the monkey selfie, we had noted all
along, that the law firm pushing to give the monkey (and with it, PETA) the
copyright on the photo was almost certainly trying to tee up a useful case to
argue that AI can get copyright and patents as well. Thankfully, the courts
(and later the US Copyright Office) determined that copyrights require a human
author.
The question on patents, however, is still a little hazy (unfortunately). It
should be the same as with copyright. The intent of both copyrights and patents
is to create incentives (in the form of a “limited” monopoly) for the creation
of the new creative work or invention. AI does not need such an incentive (nor
do animals). Over the last few years, though, there has been a rush by some who
control AI to try to patent AI creations. This is still somewhat up in the air.
In the US, the USPTO has (ridiculously) suggested that AI created inventions
could be patentable – but then (rightfully) rejected a patent application from
an AI. The EU has rejected AI-generated patents.
Unfortunately, it looks like Australia has gone down the opposite path from the
EU, after a court ruled that an AI can be an inventor for a patent. The case
was brought by the same folks who were denied patents in the EU & US, and who
are still seeking AI patents around the globe. Australia’s patent office had
followed suit with its EU & US counterparts, but the judge has now sent it back
saying that there’s nothing wrong with AI holding patents."
[…]
"Honestly, I remain perplexed by this weird attempt to demand something that
makes no sense, though it seems like yet another attempt to scam the system to
make money by shaking others down. Once again, AI needs no such incentive to
invent, and it makes no sense at all to grant it patents. An AI also cannot
assign the patents to others, or properly license a patent. The whole thing is
stupid.
It is, however, yet another point to show just how extreme the belief that
every idea must be “owned” has become. And it’s incredibly dangerous. Those
pushing for this – or the courts and patent offices agreeing with this – don’t
seem to have any concept of how badly this will backfire."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
