Goto

Collaborating Authors

Results


Legally speaking - Artificial Intelligence is not even close to human intelligence

#artificialintelligence

In public proceedings, the Legal Board of Appeal of the EPO confirmed that under the European Patent Convention (EPC), an inventor designated in a patent application must be a human being. This was the judgement in combined cases J 8/20 and J 9/20, where the board just dismissed the applicant's appeal. Here, both the applications were made by a Missouri physicist Stephen Thaler, whose AI-system DABUS had made the inventions. Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, or DABUS, is a computer system programmed to invent by itself. It is, basically, a swarm of disconnected neutral nets that can continuously generate thought processes and even memories that can, over time, generate new and inventive outputs independently.


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Takes on Artificial Intelligence JD Supra

#artificialintelligence

If the hallmark of intelligence is problem solving, then it should be no surprise that artificial intelligence is being called on to solve complex problems that human intelligence alone cannot. Intellectual property laws exist to reward intelligence, creativity and problem solving; yet, as society adapts to a world immersed in artificial intelligence, the nation's intellectual property laws have yet to do the same. The Constitution seems to only contemplate human inventors when it says, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, "The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The Patent Act similarly seems to limit patents to humans when it says, at 35 U.S.C. § 100(f), "The term'inventor' means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention." In fact, as far back as 1956, the U.S. Copyright Office refused registration for a musical composition created by a computer on the basis that copyright laws only applied to human authors.


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Takes on Artificial Intelligence

#artificialintelligence

If the hallmark of intelligence is problem solving, then it should be no surprise that artificial intelligence is being called on to solve complex problems that human intelligence alone cannot. Intellectual property laws exist to reward intelligence, creativity and problem solving; yet, as society adapts to a world immersed in artificial intelligence, the nation's intellectual property laws have yet to do the same. The Constitution seems to only contemplate human inventors when it says, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, "The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The Patent Act similarly seems to limit patents to humans when it says, at 35 U.S.C. § 100(f), "The term'inventor' means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention." In fact, as far back as 1956, the U.S. Copyright Office refused registration for a musical composition created by a computer on the basis that copyright laws only applied to human authors.


Where human intelligence outperforms AI

#artificialintelligence

David Kline is a journalist, author and intellectual property strategist. With every new trend comes a counter-trend. And so despite the current excitement over the wonders of artificial intelligence, one company is betting that human intelligence can still deliver solutions for businesses that AI cannot hope to match. Article One Partners (AOP) is a crowdsourced network of over 42,000 researchers in 170 countries -- 42% of whom have graduate degrees in a variety of science, technology, and engineering specialties. The firm got its start uncovering patent-busting prior art for defendants in high-stakes patent infringement suits, where it quickly earned a reputation for finding invalidating prior art in hidden corners of the globe that Google search could never reach -- an unpublished Korean-language PhD dissertation, a rural Norwegian library, even in a New York City pawn shop.