@ogb saidWhen robots start ruling, those judges will be running for their lives and their law enforcement personnel will be crying and peeing in their pants.
A federal judge, Leonie Brinkema has ruled in a US Patent and Trademark case , that Robots or AI computers cannot apply for Patents. (Sept. 2021)... Stephan Thaler founder of Imagination Engines plans to appeal ...
@ogb saidDo you have a link to that ruling to discuss that?
A federal judge, Leonie Brinkema has ruled in a US Patent and Trademark case , that Robots or AI computers cannot apply for Patents. (Sept. 2021)... Stephan Thaler founder of Imagination Engines plans to appeal ...
@ponderable saidSorry, I don't know how to put a link in a post..but just DuckGo "AI patents denied" and several articles will come up...
Do you have a link to that ruling to discuss that?
@ogb saidyou go to the adress space of your browser copy the adress and display it here:
Sorry, I don't know how to put a link in a post..but just DuckGo "AI patents denied" and several articles will come up...
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/16524350_22apr2020.pdf
In fact what I found (after a few tries since I was interested in the reporting, but the source) is the decision of the US Patent and Trademark Office, not the ruling by a judge. There are several sites citing the case (No. 1:20-cv-00903), but these are all sites which try to sell me the documents for the case, which are probably public property.
So to sum up the case:
Thaler and his compamny filed for a patent. They listed as sole inventor an AI called "DABUS".
The point in question is:
Intellectual Property was created.
If people want to state the inventor truthfully it is DABUS.
DABUS is not a human. The patent office has rules, which they claim need a human inventor.
The argumentation 8as I understand) is that Flashpoint IP Ltd. wants their IP protected, but can't if the inventor si not human.
If I argue from the point of history the idea of a patent was to shield a person's creativity and ensure that the person erans the fruit of their idea.
This has long been perverted. Today patents are normally owed by big compabies and most inventors are employees and the main gain goes to companies anyway.
So has the patent law to be altered? I don't think so. But it is a power tool for the big firms anyway, so for me it is not relevant if an AI can be named as inventor or not. It comes down to the fact that the company owns more IP.
@Ponderable
what is important to me is a human just couldn't do the designs/calculations required to "invent" , say, a new medical scanner. Something that detects information vastly superior to what had been done before. In that case an AI machine should truly get "credit for" its own invention...
@ogb saidIt is a long time that computers do the calculations for us.
@Ponderable
what is important to me is a human just couldn't do the designs/calculations required to "invent" , say, a new medical scanner. Something that detects information vastly superior to what had been done before. In that case an AI machine should truly get "credit for" its own invention...
What is creative has still to be defined in the world of AI I think.
@ogb saidThere is fundamental legal issue at stake here, and the ruling is correct. As soon as AI (i.e., a machine) can be held liable for damages, THEN we can start talking about giving AI 'credit' for an invention. A private person or a corporation can be held liable (you might recall the case against the manufacturer of thalidomide (deformed babies), for example). As soon as a machine suffers if it's put in prison or forced to forego other privileges, or pay a fine, then we can start talking about granting machines patents.
@Ponderable
what is important to me is a human just couldn't do the designs/calculations required to "invent" , say, a new medical scanner. Something that detects information vastly superior to what had been done before. In that case an AI machine should truly get "credit for" its own invention...
The correct decision here is that the corporation which owns the machine is liable for damages, and thereby also entitled to patent benefits or copyright royalties.
@ogb saidIf a robot or some AI system ever asked for a patent, it would be because the programmer told it too. It isn't like either do anything outside of their programming because they feel like it.
A federal judge, Leonie Brinkema has ruled in a US Patent and Trademark case , that Robots or AI computers cannot apply for Patents. (Sept. 2021)... Stephan Thaler founder of Imagination Engines plans to appeal ...
@kellyjay saidCorrect. There is no reason to think that a computer or any similar AI system, however complex, has any more inner-felt experience or conscience than an alarm clock or a diesel motor, and therefore nothing which could suffer remorse for bad consequences of its actions.
If a robot or some AI system ever asked for a patent, it would be because the programmer told it too. It isn't like either do anything outside of their programming because they feel like it.