ДалееСледующее руководство
Clearview AI и случаи конфиденциальности в области распознавания лиц
Общество
РУКОВОДСТВО ПО ОБЩЕСТВУ
No, an AI system cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent.
Courts and patent offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Patent Office, Germany and Australia have all ruled that an inventor must be a natural person, rejecting Stephen Thaler's applications that named his AI system DABUS. Inventions made with AI can still be patented when a human makes a significant contribution, which matters to every company that uses AI in research and development.
DABUS, short for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, is an AI system built by the American computer scientist Stephen Thaler. In 2018 and 2019 Thaler filed patent applications in many countries for two inventions he said DABUS came up with on its own: a food container with a fractal-shaped surface, and a flashing light designed to attract attention in emergencies. He named DABUS as the sole inventor and himself as the owner. He meant these filings as test cases. The results were almost all the same. The European Patent Office refused the applications, and in 2021 its Legal Board of Appeal confirmed that an inventor under the European Patent Convention must be a human being. In the US, the Federal Circuit held in Thaler v. Vidal (2022) that the Patent Act's word "individuals" means natural persons, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2023. In December 2023 the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an inventor under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. In Australia a single judge accepted DABUS as an inventor in 2021, but the Full Federal Court reversed that decision in 2022. Germany's Federal Court of Justice (2024) also rejected an AI inventor, while indicating that a human could be named even where AI was used. South Africa granted a patent in 2021, but it carries little weight because South Africa does not examine the substance of patent applications. Many people assume these rulings make inventions produced with AI help unpatentable. They do not. The courts decided who can be named as an inventor, not whether using AI disqualifies an invention. What matters now is whether a human contributed enough to count as an inventor. A second misconception is that DABUS lost because the inventions were weak. The cases turned almost entirely on the legal wording that defines who an inventor is.
Катастрофический и повседневный вред ИИ зависит от того, кто понимает риски и может действовать.
Общественная и профессиональная грамотность определяет, возможна ли с политической точки зрения сильная политика безопасности.
Четкие объяснения уменьшают влияние шумихи, лабораторного пиара и расплывчатого этического театра.
In the major jurisdictions the rule that inventors must be human now looks settled. Further change is more likely to come from legislatures and patent offices than from new court cases. Several questions remain open. How much human input is enough as AI systems take on more of the design work? Will widespread AI use change the "person skilled in the art" standard used to judge whether an invention is obvious? Will some inventions made with little human input fall outside patent protection and be kept as trade secrets instead? Some commentators have proposed a new type of protection for AI-generated inventions, but no major jurisdiction has adopted one. Patent office guidance is likely to keep changing as examiners see more AI-assisted applications.
A pharmaceutical team uses a generative model to propose thousands of candidate molecules. A chemist then picks one and changes it based on her own hypothesis about how it binds. Her contribution can support her being named as inventor, but naming the model would get the application rejected.
An engineer types "design a better bicycle brake" into an AI tool and files whatever comes back. He risks having no qualifying human inventor, because simply presenting a general problem is unlikely to count as a significant contribution.
A patent attorney preparing inventor declarations for an AI-heavy project records who wrote the specific prompts, who judged and refined the outputs, and who built and tested the working prototype.
A startup filing in the UK and at the European Patent Office names its lead researcher, not its AI platform, as inventor. The UK Supreme Court's 2023 ruling and the EPO's decisions made clear that an AI cannot be designated.
Относитесь к экзистенциальному риску как к научной фантастике, в то время как возможности растут.
Сбивает с толку безопасность поверхности продукта и выравнивание при высокой автономности.
Оставляя неанглоязычную и неспециалистскую аудиторию только с некачественными источниками.
Отдельные риски повреждения продукта, неправильного использования и потери контроля/перекоса.
Спросите, какие доказательства могут изменить ваше мнение о сроках и серьезности.
Предпочитайте первоисточники и конкретные оценки маркетинговым заявлениям.
Определите один путь действий: карьера, политика, финансирование или навыки, а не только осведомленность.
Free newsletter
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
No, an AI system cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent. Courts and patent offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Patent Office, Germany and Australia have all ruled that an inventor must be a natural person, rejecting Stephen Thaler's applications that named his AI system DABUS. Inventions made with AI can still be patented when a human makes a significant contribution, which matters to every company that uses AI in research and development.
Приложения Талера касались контейнера для еды фрактальной формы и мигающего света для привлечения внимания в чрезвычайных ситуациях. Сами изобретения были скромными. Дело шло о том, кого можно назвать изобретателем.
Суд истолковал статутное слово «отдельные лица» как означающее людей, поэтому ИИ не может быть изобретателем. Верховный суд отказался пересматривать это решение в 2023 году.
Верховный суд Великобритании единогласно постановил, что Закон о патентах 1977 года требует, чтобы изобретатель был физическим лицом, что соответствует решениям в США и ЕПВ.
Поскольку Южная Африка выдает патенты без изучения их сути, выдача гранта не была обдуманным решением о том, что ИИ может быть изобретателем.
Австралия на какое-то время выглядела исключением после того, как судья первой инстанции принял дело ДАБУСА. Федеральный суд полного состава отменил это решение в 2022 году.
Продолжайте учиться
Другие руководства, выбранные по этой теме
ДалееСледующее руководство
Clearview AI и случаи конфиденциальности в области распознавания лиц
Общество