Even with all the intelligence at their disposal, human beings have failed rather sensationally at not making mistakes. This remains well-documented throughout our history, with each representation practically forcing us to look for a defensive cover. To the world’s credit, it will find that exact cover once it brings dedicated regulatory bodies into the fold. Having a defined authority across each and every area was a game-changer, as it wasted no time in concealing a lot of our shortcomings. Nevertheless, the whole runner will die down soon, and if we care to be honest for a second, it was all technology’s fault. You see, the moment technology and its layered nature took over the scene; it gave people an unprecedented shot at exploiting others for their own benefit. This would expectantly overwhelm our governing forces, and consequentially, send us back to square one. Fortunately enough, though, these horizons are going to change again. The same dynamic has grown more and more apparent over the recent past. In fact, it should only get stronger on the back of a recently-introduced mandate.
The US federal circuit court has formally confirmed that AI systems cannot patent inventions as they are not human beings. This shakes out to be another chapter in a fight that started when computer scientist Stephen Thaler tried to copyright an image on behalf of an AI system he dubbed as Creativity Machine. Just one year later, the US Patent Office ruled that Thaler’s AI system DABUS could not be a legal inventor because it was not a “natural person.” Now, in a bid to explain the latest decision, Judge Leonard P. Stark said:
“Statutes are often open to multiple reasonable readings. Not so here,” writes Stark. “This is a case in which the question of statutory interpretation begins and ends with the plain meaning of the text… [T]here is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings. “
Stark goes on to talk about how Thaler’s claims were purely speculative, while also dismissing all concerns on Thaler’s part in regards to the fact that denying AI patents can possibly kill the very purpose of patents, a purpose which talks to encouraging “progress of science and the useful arts.” Interestingly enough, US is not the first country that denied to recognize AI iterations as legitimate patent holders. We have already seen similar judgments across Europe, Australia, and several other areas. Nevertheless, despite what looks like a pretty universal stance, Thaler is planning to appeal the latest decision soon.
