A.I. and the Question of Inventorship
A topic is trending in the world of A.I. It’s the question of if A.I. can now be recognized as an inventor. Put another way, people are asking, "If a machine develops something novel, can it hold a patent?" Historically, the answer would have been a firm, "No." But two landmark cases — one in South Africa, the other in Australia — have cast new light on the subject.
A.I. and Copyright Law Across the World
When describing a solution’s creator, most patent laws refer to them as "individuals" or "natural persons," leaving no room for A.I. to be considered the inventor.
The Challenge
The challenge is that most patent laws are decades old. They’re yet to account for what emerging technologies can do. And that’s why developers worldwide are calling the legal texts into question.
Can A.I. be an Inventor? South Africa Says, ‘Yes.’
When South Africa granted a patent to a "food container based on fractal geometry," few people paid much attention. Authorities grant such patents every day. But look closer at the application, and you’ll notice a groundbreaking detail: the designated inventor was not a natural person by any stretch of the imagination. The "mind" behind the solution was an A.I.-based system called DABUS.
Australian Patent Office’s Verdict
The Australian Commissioner of Patents initially rejected the DABUS application on the grounds that "an A.I. system cannot be considered an inventor on an Australian patent." However, a Federal Court judge overturned this determination. Judge Beach deemed the Commissioner’s interpretation of an inventor as "too narrowly applied" because, in his view, an inventor can be "anything that invents." So — for the time being, A.I. can be recognized as an inventor in Australia too.
Should A.I. be Recognized as an Inventor?
Whether A.I. "can" or "should" be recognized as an inventor are two very different questions, so let’s end by exploring the nuance. In the age of machine learning, where humans can program systems to process and analyze vast amounts of data before letting them work independently, there’s an argument that says "Yes, A.I. can be an inventor." But recognizing A.I. as such opens up a number of challenges.
Conclusion
The time is now to rewrite patent law. While DABUS has shone a light on the constraints of existing patent laws, we’re still some way away from A.I. inventing on a daily basis. Moreover, artificial intelligence is not yet smart enough to create "novelty" as described in existing legal texts. But with capabilities fast improving, it won’t be long before A.I. becomes one of the world’s leading innovators. That’s why lawmakers need to update legal texts as soon as possible.
FAQs
- Can A.I. be recognized as an inventor?
- Yes, in some cases, like in South Africa and Australia.
- What are the implications of recognizing A.I. as an inventor?
- It would open up new challenges, such as determining ownership and rights to intellectual property.
- How does this impact the future of innovation?
- It could lead to a more collaborative and accelerated pace of innovation, with A.I. working alongside humans to create new solutions.
- What are the next steps?
- Lawmakers and patent offices need to update their legal texts to accommodate the rise of A.I. in innovation.
