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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ai, dabus, epo, eu, humans, incentives, ownership, patents, ryan abbott
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What causes Skynet? This causes Skynet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... because the most efficient way to rid Earth of human-generated global warming is to rid Earth of humans?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next we will see a rush of patents assigned to the CEOs of companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It needs no incentive to do anything. Yet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freakin writer's blindness...
'Honestly, without money why would we care?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But why AI won't be able to get patents?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As I understand it, that's kind of what Thomas Edison did by claiming to be the inventor of things that were actually invented by his employees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Try reading the story first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'Honestly, without money why would care?'
That would be socialism!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I look forward to the Starving AI Artist signs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AIs won't even load and run without assistance. Impossible for one to invent something without assistance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What incentive do they need? If an actual AI* can be granted a patent, the AI is a free being and any company and developers can have a big middle finger.
*There is no such thing as an AI. AI is a field of study. AI wankers just keep redefining AI, like 4G, so what they have fits the definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Don't let the inventor of Microsoft Works hear you say that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Or from foreign pattents he acquired like the incandescent lightbulb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Freakin writer's blindness...
There's plenty of money to be made without a monopoly.
99+% of all commerce doesn't involve any monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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%
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because there is a lot of difference between what the article is discussing and what commenters post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'Honestly, without money why would care?'
Unfortunately, this decision won't change a thing. In future, the AI-operators just won't tell anyone an AI invented it. Pharmaceutical companies have long been using computers to search for promising substances that they then claim patents on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]