Since the mid-1960s, intellectual property (IP) law specialists have debated whether computers or computer programs can be "authors" whose outputs can be copyrighted.6 The U.S. Congress was so befuddled about this issue in the mid-1970s that it created a special Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) to address this and a few other computer-related issues.4 A second burst of interest in AI authorship broke out in the mid-1980s. Congress once again commissioned a study, this time from its Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), to address this and other controversial computer-related issues. OTA did not offer an answer to the question, perhaps in part because at that time, it was a "toy problem" because no commercially significant outputs of AI or other software programs had yet been generated.5
Legend has it that when an emperor asked an inventor to name his reward, the inventor asked the emperor for payment in the humble grain of rice, giving the inventor the total gained by doubling a single grain of rice over a 64-square chessboard. In the end, the final squares had exponential mountains of rice. The velocity of technology advancement, especially for the manufacturing industry, is no different--it's exponential. Despite its lower digital maturity and research and development (R&D) investment than other industries,1 the manufacturing industry has been successful in gradually furthering its innovation agenda by increasing its patent-based innovation intensity to build new product and service capabilities. Continuous advancement will likely become critical to the success in an ecosystem that industry leaders believe is nearing the "second half of the chessboard."2
The #AI Supremacy: Who Will Take the Lead in This Global Race https://t.co/rYBYqcYnil Think of the #AI journey as having four steps: Discovery, Data, Develop, and Deploy. Clearview AI #facialrecognition system has received plenty of bad press recently. Let's understand the actual functionality and utility from a criminal investigator. A new technique for teaching a machine-learning algorithm increased image classification accuracy up to 7%. USPTO Rules #artificialintelligence Cannot Be Named As Inventor for Patent Application USPTO Rules #artificialintelligence Cannot Be Named As Inventor for Patent Application Embed To embed, copy and paste .. https://t.co/8lXVoTQWn1
Turns out that AI is not able to be a patent holder, plus other thorny topics. Can AI be an inventor? According to a recent decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the answer seems to be no. There is more to this story, though, and we'll need to push past the surface to understand the full nuances involved. Perhaps a more apt way to depict the situation is whether AI can be formally granted a U.S. patent, and for that the answer appears to unequivocally and emphatically be a razor-sharp no.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office officially selected a new partner to support its increasing adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities.General Dynamics Information Technology on Monday announced it was awarded a contract worth up to $50 million through its Intelligent Automation and Innovation Support Services blanket purchase agreement. GDIT is the latest of more than a dozen companies the agency tapped under the future-facing BPA. Other businesses who've made their own recent announcements detailing partnerships via the agreement include Octo and Steampunk.In the announcement, Vice President & General Manager Christopher Hegedus for GDIT's Diplomacy, Commerce and Government Operations business area noted the company's supported the agency for nearly two decades, and through this "new work, [aims to bring its] AI, ML and robotic process automation expertise to help USPTO develop solutions that accelerate the patent and trademark process to benefit American innovators." Charged with issuing patents for inventions and registering trademarks for product and intellectual property identification, USPTO is making deliberate moves to "propel" itself into the next decade technologically, the agency's chief information officer recently told Nextgov. And it appears the BPA is one avenue helping it to do exactly that.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office officially selected a new partner to support its increasing adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities. General Dynamics Information Technology on Monday announced it was awarded a contract worth up to $50 million through USPTO's Intelligent Automation and Innovation Support Services blanket purchase agreement. GDIT is the latest of more than a dozen companies the agency tapped under the future-facing BPA. Other businesses who've made their own recent announcements detailing partnerships via the agreement include Octo and Steampunk. In the announcement, Vice President & General Manager Christopher Hegedus for GDIT's Diplomacy, Commerce and Government Operations business area noted the company's supported the agency for nearly two decades, and through this "new work, [aims to bring its] AI, ML and robotic process automation expertise to help USPTO develop solutions that accelerate the patent and trademark process to benefit American innovators."
Section 101 states "[w]hoever invents or discovers…may obtain a patent therefore…" According to 35 U.S.C. § 100, an inventor is defined as an individual or individuals. As technology has advanced and the possibility that AI would invent something became a probability, the question has arisen whether AI can be an inventor under United States law.
Last summer it was reported that patents had been filed in the USA and Europe listing an artificial intelligence system as the inventor. The patents in question were for a food container and a warning light and were filed by Stephen Thaler on behalf of DABUS (an AI system). Those applications have been considered, and on 22 April the US patent and trademark office (USPTO) reached the same verdict as the UK and European offices, denying the patents. In his application Thaler asserted that the inventions were generated by DABUS (which he dubs a "creativity machine"), and that the system was not created to solve any particular problem. He claims it was, therefore, the machine, not a person, that recognised the novelty of the invention.
The nation's top inventors and businesses rely heavily on the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue patents for inventions and register trademarks for product and intellectual property identification. The agency has come to embrace increasingly more emerging and advanced technologies in recent years to meet its mission, and it is now also enduring a large-scale modernization. USPTO Chief Information Officer Jamie Holcombe is working to help make the agency's systems "better, cheaper and faster." Holcombe joined the agency at the request of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director Andrei Iancu, who immediately articulated his aims to "propel the USPTO into the next decade." "He wanted to ensure that all the up-to-date commercial tools were available to the USPTO examiners so that we could conduct our business in the most advanced way possible," Holcombe told Nextgov in the latest episode of Critical Update.
Quite recently, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ruled that Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems can't get the credit of a legal inventor in a patent filing. The ruling has come as a response to two Patent Applications filed corresponding to a flashing light and food container, which were created by an AI-based system known as DABUS. The USPTO has presented a lot of arguments concerning the same. The first and foremost argument corresponds to the Patent Law in the US, which repeatedly refers to the patent inventors or innovators by using humanlike pronouns like'himself' and'herself' and terms like'whoever.' The team that filed the patent applications had argued by saying that the patent law's references to an inventor as an'individual' could very well be applied to machines too.