According to an Australian court ruling, MI systems can also be named as inventors in patent applications that have so far allowed only people to be listed.
According to a decision of an Australian Federal Court, under current law, not only natural persons, but also MI systems can be classified as inventors in patent applications. which could set a global precedent. The Amnesty International news report According to him, the ruling, made as a reversal of a previous system, could set a global precedent not only in patent cases, but as a very small first step towards assigning rights to increasingly advanced machines that can only be explained by living people. .
As a report from AI News shows, a professor at the University of Surrey in the UK has filed more than a dozen patent applications around the world, including in the UK, US, New Zealand and Australia. Dr. Stephen Thaler Basim. The twist was that patent applications did not mention Thaler but Dabus’s MI device named AI as the inventor.
To date, all iylen patent applications have been rejected, including in Australia: in all states it has been stipulated that the inventor must be human in any case. Overturning the original ruling, the Australian court judge has now clarified that, in his view, an inventor recognized by law could also be an artificial intelligence system or device: according to its formulation, man was created and created, and this could apply to his own creations.
The current method cannot be maintained
Dabus AI itself is made up of neural networks and has been involved in the development of a large number of innovations, from emergency lights to food storage containers that improve adhesion and heat transfer. Although MI systems lag far behind the self-conscious or even conscious machines that appear in works of science fiction today, commentators say there is a growing need for answers about whether MI should or can be linked to certain rights similar to those. of their people.
We also talked about the legal campaign between the University of Surrey and the American inventor three years ago, when the question was raised what happens when artificial intelligence invents something that was not originally taught in this model. Investment in the development of general-purpose AI has been steadily flowing since then, and no matter how remote the actual implementation may be, regulating the patent field can be an important component of that.
Professor of Law at the University of Surrey, Ryan Abbott He warned that if there were more and more products invented by artificial intelligence in the future, the intellectual property system known today would inevitably collapse. He described the current ruling as a historic step, as the court said it recognized the need for a new inventory approach, which would be a condition for us to exploit the potential of inventions created by MI systems for the benefit of society.