3 ms·
AI cannot be named as patent 'inventor', UK Supreme Court rules
- blacksqr 3y agoNow do copyrights.
- consumer451 3y agohttps://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receiv...
- blacksqr 3y agoRight, now I'd like to see if the UK and EU follow suit.
- boh 3y agoIt makes sense. Unless AI becomes a legal entity, how can it have ownership rights?
- 3836293648 3y agoHhe inventor is not the owner. Companies can't be inventors either, so they list the employee as the inventor and the company as the owner
- pocketarc 3y ago> The US-based developer claims the AI machine named DABUS autonomously created a food or drink container and a light beacon and that he is entitled to rights over its inventions. So he used AI to generate a patent. If it's something worth filing a patent for, why not file the patent under his name? AI would just be a tool that helped write the patent. Why did he want the inventor to be the AI? Is it just a PR thing? Trying to establish precedents on who owns the output of AI?
- blacksqr 3y agoHe wants to establish the precedent of an AI as a legal entity with rights and privileges. He's also trying to copyright images created by DABUS, for similar reasons.
- artninja1988 3y agoWhy would you even want the ai to have the patent or whatever, except maybe novelty. Presumably the person using the ai wants the patent/ copyright, right?