The chronicles and debate surrounding the world of AI continue and this time around, it has to do with patent rejection by the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom.
A scientist by the name of Stephen Thaler was provided with a shock when his AI-assisted computer inventions were rejected as non-human and hence cannot be said to be under his ownership.
Thaler added how he wished to claim them as his own but the court says making use of any sort of creative machine to churn output such as AI cannot be claimed for copyrights.
This particular scientist in question says his project was dubbed DABUS and it pertained to containers used for food and beverage storage through a light beacon. But little was he aware of the fact that his application submitted to the court of law would be downright rejected.
In fact, he called the matter baffling when he went out to file his patents. There and then, the application was returned and his registrations were downright denied, where a reminder kept on being generated linked to how it’s not a human.
His next and only option was to go to the court of law, with great hopes. But even then he faced rejection and was reminded that AI cannot be considered human and since that was the inventor in his case, there was a lot to consider.
The ruling continued to be upheld as per reports from Reuters. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also generated a reminder about how this type of ruling does not provide the right answer to bigger queries. Of particular importance were those asking if AI-powered machines need to be patented or not.
It only provides the answer to whether this inventor in question could file a patent stating his ownership of the product through the state’s patent law from 1977. The latter broadly mentioned how inventors must qualify as human beings and that’s not the case here.
When we look at this particular case in detail, the inventor tried to do the same in places like the US but again, he was rejected by the American Patent Trademark Office. And then the American Court of Law refused to hear his appeal on the matter.
Speaking to media outlet Reuters recently, his lawyer added how such a ruling is clear evidence that anyone asking for ownership rights for material generated via AI needs to think twice because that is not happening. It’s inadequate in terms of providing support for the industry which puts heavy reliance on AI when creating new kinds of technologies.
Meanwhile, we also saw one spokesperson lay out the grounds for how the decision of the court had to do with providing a clarification that was much needed, especially considering the current boom in AI and its associated products.
So the next time you think of getting or wanting copyright protection for such products, you might want to think again.
Photo: DIW-AIgen
Read next: Apple Scientists Propose Major AI Technology Innovations That Could Revolutionize iPhones And iPads
A scientist by the name of Stephen Thaler was provided with a shock when his AI-assisted computer inventions were rejected as non-human and hence cannot be said to be under his ownership.
Thaler added how he wished to claim them as his own but the court says making use of any sort of creative machine to churn output such as AI cannot be claimed for copyrights.
This particular scientist in question says his project was dubbed DABUS and it pertained to containers used for food and beverage storage through a light beacon. But little was he aware of the fact that his application submitted to the court of law would be downright rejected.
In fact, he called the matter baffling when he went out to file his patents. There and then, the application was returned and his registrations were downright denied, where a reminder kept on being generated linked to how it’s not a human.
His next and only option was to go to the court of law, with great hopes. But even then he faced rejection and was reminded that AI cannot be considered human and since that was the inventor in his case, there was a lot to consider.
The ruling continued to be upheld as per reports from Reuters. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also generated a reminder about how this type of ruling does not provide the right answer to bigger queries. Of particular importance were those asking if AI-powered machines need to be patented or not.
It only provides the answer to whether this inventor in question could file a patent stating his ownership of the product through the state’s patent law from 1977. The latter broadly mentioned how inventors must qualify as human beings and that’s not the case here.
When we look at this particular case in detail, the inventor tried to do the same in places like the US but again, he was rejected by the American Patent Trademark Office. And then the American Court of Law refused to hear his appeal on the matter.
Speaking to media outlet Reuters recently, his lawyer added how such a ruling is clear evidence that anyone asking for ownership rights for material generated via AI needs to think twice because that is not happening. It’s inadequate in terms of providing support for the industry which puts heavy reliance on AI when creating new kinds of technologies.
Meanwhile, we also saw one spokesperson lay out the grounds for how the decision of the court had to do with providing a clarification that was much needed, especially considering the current boom in AI and its associated products.
So the next time you think of getting or wanting copyright protection for such products, you might want to think again.
Photo: DIW-AIgen
Read next: Apple Scientists Propose Major AI Technology Innovations That Could Revolutionize iPhones And iPads
