EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications

Re:EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications by bluesign on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @07:03AM (#21990616)

"DABUS was developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who is named as the applicant on the patent documents."

Problem is AI cannot be the inventor, as inventor has to be natural person. This is no different than corporation cannot be the inventor. [1]

[1] https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/18455/can-a-corp...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications by TheOtherHobbes on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @09:23AM (#21991673)

This is going to be a huge problem for AI-generated art, music, and other media, because currently these are all public domain by default, for the same reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications by Ididntdothis on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @09:57AM (#21991954)

I think this would be an excellent outcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications by im3w1l on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @11:17AM (#21992719)

Public domain by default?! Shouldn't they AI count as just another tool? Someone ran the AI program. Someone took a look at its output and said "ah this looks sweet, let's apply for this one". These people are the tool users and should be classified as the inventors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications by bluesign on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @12:50PM (#21993855)

Actually no, by default copyright is assigned to the user of the AI.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications by lttlrck on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @09:25AM (#21991693)

I think that would be a copyright issue though.

[ Parent | on HN ]