Finance Associated Press, December 20 (edited by Niu Zhanlin).On Wednesday local time, the British Supreme Court rejected the claim of an American computer scientist to apply for a patent for his artificial intelligence system inventions, which is a landmark case on whether artificial intelligence can be patented.
The scientist, Stephen Thaler, wants to secure two patents for inventions in the UK, which, according to him, were designed by his artificial intelligence system, DABUS.
Thaler tried to register a patent for this, but was rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office on the grounds that the inventor must be a natural person or company, not a machine such as artificial intelligence.
Thaler appealed to the UK Supreme Court instead, but the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his appeal on Wednesday because under UK patent law, "the inventor must be a natural person".
In his written ruling, the UK Supreme Court Judge D**id Kitchin said: "This appeal has nothing to do with the broader question of whether technological advances resulting from the autonomous actions of machines powered by artificial intelligence should be patented. ”
"It also does not address the question of whether the meaning of the term 'inventor' should be broadened......Including AI-powered machines that can generate new and non-obvious products and processes that may be considered superior to those already known. ”
Thaler's lawyer said in a statement: "This judgment shows that UK patent law is currently completely unapplicable to the protection of inventions autonomously generated by AI machines. ”
Actually, this isn't the first time Thaler has encountered something like this. Earlier this year, Thaler lost a similar lawsuit in the United States, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his claim.
Thaler filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, arguing that he should own the patent for Dabus having designed a drink holder and an emergency logo without outside interference. But the United States** has refused to grant patents for AI systems that are "not human."
In August, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that only works in collaboration with human authors could be copyrighted, and confirmed that the U.S. Copyright Office had denied Thaler's application on behalf of his DABUS system.
Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, said the UK Supreme Court's decision was not a surprise. "At this time, this decision will not have a significant impact on the patent system. This is because, for now, AI is a tool, not a natural person. ”
However, Parsons believes that while AI cannot be the "inventor" of patents in the short term, the situation may change in the future, but that is also for later.