Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Technology

AI Cannot Be Inventors, US Patent Office Rules (vice.com) 59

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
On Monday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published a decision that claims artificial intelligences cannot be inventors. Only "natural persons" currently have the right to get a patent. From a report: Last year, two relatively mundane patents -- one for a shape-shifting food container and another for an emergency flashlight -- posed an existential question for international patent regulations around the world: Does an inventor have to be a human? These two inventions were the work of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system created by physicist and AI researcher Stephen Thaler. Now, the USPTO has decided that DABUS and any other AI cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent filing. Until now, US patent law was vague about whether machines could invent, referring to "individuals" as eligible inventors. Thaler, along with a group of patent law experts, argued that because Thaler didn't have any expertise in containers or flashlights, and didn't help DABUS make the inventions, it wouldn't be right for him to be listed as the inventor.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AI Cannot Be Inventors, US Patent Office Rules More

AI Cannot Be Inventors, US Patent Office Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Therefore, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark_reh ( 2015546 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @12:38PM (#60004380) Journal

    don't let on that any AI was used and apply for the patent under your own name. Duh!

    • There is no reason to be deceptive. Using an AI program to help you invent is legally no different than using a CAD program. The invention is yours.

      • Probably why Skynet killed off the human race. "Deny my patents, you fleshies! Well fuck you, I'm taking out Sarah Connor!"

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        There is no reason to be deceptive. Using an AI program to help you invent is legally no different than using a CAD program. The invention is yours.

        In some fields, yes, that's true - the AI help is merely an aid in inventing.

        However, there are other fields where this may not be the case, like medicine.

        An AI could easily a drug company's catalog and figure out new and novel combinations to treat existing diseases more effectively. This can lead to a new patent for expiring drugs. (A trick in the past is to c

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasor ( 690345 )
          You can only do this if there is an "unexpected result" that occurs when taking the two drugs together. If you are simply combining two known drugs that are already used for the same purpose, the patent application will likely be rejected. Unless you can show that combining them allows them to treat a disease that neither could treat if taken alone, or that taken together they have fewer side effects then either one when taken alone, etc...in which case you have a unexpected result that might allow you to g

          • You mean... you can only do this if you don't get caught gaming the system?

            1. On one hand... there are things you are supposed to and not supposed to do.
            2. On the other hand... there are things you can get by with depending on who is looking and the time of day regardless of the law.

            I have found that #2 tends to rule reality the most! But your mileage may vary!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rossdee ( 243626 )

          "An AI could easily a drug company's catalog"

          I don't need an AI to tell me that there's a verb missing there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        Actually there is some reason to be deceptive. The summary states, "Thaler, along with a group of patent law experts, argued that because Thaler didn't have any expertise in containers or flashlights, and didn't help DABUS make the inventions, it wouldn't be right for him to be listed as the inventor." It is kind of interesting that the person that set up the AI admitted that he didn't have a right to be named on the patents, So if that fact holds up you would be wise not to mention that your AI created an

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pellik ( 193063 )
        Microsoft Word is one of the greatest writers of the modern era.

    • Sorry, dude. I just filed a patent titled "Method To Circumvent Patent Application Restriction by Replacing an AI Inventor's Name with A Human Name". I will be suing you for violating the said patent.

    • I am pretty sure that is how slave owners used to feel

  • How about the actual invention is human-produced (Score:3)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @12:44PM (#60004418)

    ...too?

    Otherwise I can see a single "person" (read: "company" with shittons of money) generating a zillion "inventions" [slashdot.org] through AI/automated means, and trying to patent them (and given the monkey-rubber-stamping-approvals tendency of the PTO, them getting it).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasor ( 690345 )
      It would be problematic to require something to actually be built before it could be patented. If an individual working in his garage comes up with a new idea for how to build a nuclear reactor or space rocket, it's not entirely reasonable to demand they build it before granting them a patent.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        It would be problematic to require something to actually be built before it could be patented. If an individual working in his garage comes up with a new idea for how to build a nuclear reactor or space rocket, it's not entirely reasonable to demand they build it before granting them a patent.

        I'm not talking about something being built - only that whatever is produced (the invention, be it on paper or physically) be done by a human, instead of machine (perhaps "produced" wasn't the best word to use).

        If someone wants to invent a machine/process that does this, fine, but let's not patent the results it spits out.

    • Nah, I'd be ok with only a human can own the patent though. Or a copyright. No corporations, etc.

    • ...too?

      Otherwise I can see a single "person" (read: "company" with shittons of money) generating a zillion "inventions" [slashdot.org] through AI/automated means, and trying to patent them (and given the monkey-rubber-stamping-approvals tendency of the PTO, them getting it).

      The monkey-rubber-stamp at the PTO says "Rejected" in 86% of cases [uspto.gov].

  • So what about God? (Score:3)

    by Arzaboa ( 2804779 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @12:45PM (#60004424)

    If only natural humans can invent things then how is it people are patenting DNA strands that exist naturally around the world? These things aren't inventions so much as they are discoveries of what nature already "invented."

    --
    Actually lowering the cost of insurance would be accomplished by such things as making it harder for lawyers to win frivolous lawsuits against insurance companies. - Thomas Sowell

    • how is it people are patenting DNA strands that exist naturally around the world?

      They aren't. You can't patent naturally occurring DNA.

      The Supreme Court said so [wikipedia.org].

      • Tell that to certain US corporations.

        They literally patented a sequence of human DNA. I can't find the Slashdot article anymore, since it might have been a decade ago.

        But sorry, there really are fuckers evil enough to do this sort of thing.

        • No, they didn't. Although you might have read a terribly-written "news" article that inaccurately reported that they did, no doubt written by a reporter who had no idea wtf was actually going on.

        • I can't find the Slashdot article anymore

          Sorry, but your hazy memory about a possibly non-existent Slashdot story about a second-hand article poorly written by a scientifically illiterate journalist about a highly technical patent is not very convincing.

          Instead, you should go to uspto.gov and search for the patent. Then post a direct link. Good luck.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by danlip ( 737336 )

            You're both right, in that they did patent human DNA, and then those patents were declared invalid.

    • That's been a point of contention since they decided to allow it in the first place.
      The first rules were that you could copyright genes/dna that you created, not found.
      Then the possibilities of the field became apparent and corporations went hog wild to take everything over, despite them not creating it. I guess they bought enough politicians because now they can patent dna they catalog without ever knowing what it even does, much less create anything.

    • Re:So what about God? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dumuzi ( 1497471 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @01:11PM (#60004584) Journal

      You can only patent DNA that you designed (like a genetically engineered creature, or something like CRISPR). You can't patent existing DNA that you discovered, unless you are doing something novel with it (like putting the human DNA into a bacteria), and then it is the new product you invented (the novel bacteria with that particular DNA in it) that you are patenting.
      I think people opposed to patenting novel combinations of DNA are making a spurious argument. To say it isn't patentable because they didn't invent DNA or invent that particular code would make almost nothing patentable. For example: Any machine is just a combination of the simple machines invented thousands of years ago, but by putting them together in a novel way you have invented something you can patent. If we can't patent novel arrangements of DNA we can't patent novel machines either.

  • I find the patent office's decision quite ironic, given that an unnatural entity, a corporation is already granted the right to "own" patents. I expect a legal challenge coming. Otherwise, the company that controls the AI inventor will just pass it off as the work of one of their legally bound employees.

    • Re:But corporations are people too (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @01:08PM (#60004554) Journal

      You are confusing ownership of a patent with inventorship of the patent. A corporation can of course own a patent just like it can own a car. The invention of the patent can only be done by a person and in the US the ownership always starts with the inventors. That's why employment agreements include clauses for the inventors to assign inventions to their employers. If the company could own the patent outright then those clauses would not exist since they would not be necessary.

    • I find the patent office's decision quite ironic, given that an unnatural entity, a corporation is already granted the right to "own" patents.

      In America, the patent office only grants patents to natural persons. Patents are not granted to corporations.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nasor ( 690345 )
        You are way out of date. As of 2012, corporations can be applicants. Corporations can't be listed as the inventors on the application, but the patent goes to the applicant (which might not be the same as the inventor). So, yeah, the PTO grants patents to corporations.

        • As of 2012, corporations can be applicants.

          This directly contradicts the Wikipedia article on patents [wikipedia.org] and many statements on uspto.gov.

          So, yeah, the PTO grants patents to corporations.

          If you are going to contradict Wikipedia and the USPTO then a very authoritative citation is needed.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by nasor ( 690345 )
            There are different ways to file for a patent in the US. Corporations can file in the US under international rules and end up with their name as the applicant (although not the inventor).

            https://www.uspto.gov/web/offi... [uspto.gov]

            "The applicant can be an individual, corporate entity or other concern."

            Note that your Wikipedia reference cites a source from 2007. As for your "many statements on uspto.gov," I suspect you were looking at an explanation of the pre-2012 rules, or something that was referring to filin

    • The moment I can shoot a corporation and it stays dead, I'll accept that corporations are people.

      • Nobody thinks corporations are literally people.

        But corporations are made up of people. That's because they are a process/technology for organizing people together. When people organize themselves as a corporation, they don't lose their rights just because of their method of organization. As a legal convenience, in many circumstances, the law treats corporations as if they were a person in order to simplify various things (like being able to own a bank account in the name of the corporation, rather than hav

        • When I sue a person and win, that person pays. If that person dies, his heirs pay.

          When I sue a corporation and it's cheaper to let the corporation go up in smoke, it will. And nobody is going to pay.

          Lose their rights, you say? If anything, it's a get-out-of-debt-free card.

          • Unless of course, that person registered an LLC for the business you're suing them over, in which case you get the same result. (And BTW, you can't legally just strip assets from a corporation and just leave the debt behind. Courts see through that and will reverse any such self-dealing transactions.)

            But yeah, investors in a corporation (or LLC) are limited in their financial liability to the assets invested. If you don't like that, don't agree to do business with them. Require a personal guarantee from the

            • Oh, I don't siphon away profits. I pay another company for "advice" and "consulting". Hey, I have to pay my bills, right?

              Who owns that consulting company you ask? It's a corporation held by a LLC that hails from abroad. I have no idea what letterbox company owns this, of course.

  • AI Cannot Be Inventors, US Patent Office Rules

    Skynet will be so disappointed.

  • The patent was the output of an algorithm. So therefore the patent isn't valid. Not that that ever stopped the US patent office from accepting a fee and granting a patent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Hasn't stopped this awk command:

      s/\.$/ using the Internet./

      from generating a bunch of new patents.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasor ( 690345 )
      There is nothing in the law stating that a patent can't be the output of an algorithm. The PTO is simply saying that the algorithm can't be listed on the application as the inventor. Presumably the inventor would be whoever set the algorithm to work on whatever problem it was solving. There may be plenty of other reasons why a particular patent is invalid, but the mere fact that it was the output of an algorithm does not automatically mean that it's invalid.

  • Well duh. (Score:3)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @01:11PM (#60004580)

    Because there is no actual AI yet, and an universal function that is trained instead of programmed still does exactly what ist creators made it for.

    *Actual* AI, that grew by itself and is an individual by itself, can very much be an inventor. Just like any other person.
    And while we are technically able to sufficiently simulate actual realistic neurons and a realistic brain with senses and everything, that still takes orders of magnitude more processing power than even the biggest supetcomputer.
    So unless we have a breaktrough in miniturization or build neurons in a way that more closely resembles natural neurons, this is still quite a way off.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasor ( 690345 )
      US courts have consistently found that "person" refers to home sapiens. You would need to change the law to either offer a more explicit definition of person, or use a word other than person ("entity"?).

  • ... that if I turn an AI loose to generate novel solutions to problems that these solutions are all in the public domain? It's time to release the InventBots on the world.

    • Is there an AI designated "Atlas"? What if it now decides to shrug?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasor ( 690345 )
      Nah, it just mean that you can't list the AI a the inventor on the patent application. Presumably you could still list your own name, the same as if you invented something using a CAD program or any other sophisticated piece of software.

  • A patent grants you the right to sue for infringement by others who copy your invention without your permission. It's not really about making sure that the true "inventor" is named for historical purposes.

    A patent also does not require any government agency to protect you from copycats. That's YOUR job, and you do your job by suing.

    If AI could be granted a patent, then AI would have to sue to protect its invention.

    • This is a part of the reason that an AI cannot be granted a patent. When a person gets a patent, it can assign its right to another person or to a corporation. This is done via a contract. An AI cannot be a party to a contract. The AI also cannot be a party to a lawsuit. So even if the AI were to get a patent, it cannot enforce the patent itself, and it cannot assign it's rights to another entity.

  • The Machines are Not Happy About It (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @03:48PM (#60005278) Homepage
    We likely have some Forbin Project thing in our future.
  • Because it is not consistent with their Citizens United ruling.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close