The advantages of artificial intelligence are practically endless. They facilitate production, they are extremely fast in the creation processes, they solve errors that are almost impossible to solve by humans and they contribute new ideas. However, there is a relatively simple task that is hardly legal in many countries: let artificial intelligence reveal things.
Until now, few regions have admitted that an artificial intelligence is capable of patenting things and appearing as inventors of that idea in the respective Intellectual Property offices. The last country to allow it has been Australia. The Federal Court rectified a decision carried out by the Patent Commissioner, who at first denied that artificial intelligence can be considered an inventor and, therefore, register patents, after a failed attempt by “Dabus”, an AI that requested to register multiple products.
Dabus (Device for Autonomous Starting of Unified Sensitivity) has been created by Stephen Thaler. It is a machine learning system capable of generating ideas and inventing products, such as a food and drink container based on fractal geometry for better grip and heat preservation. At the moment, Thaler's AI has tried to register that product with different patent offices. In Australia, as in other regions, the application was rejected as it was not a natural person.
Australia and South Africa consider an IA as an inventor
Finally, Judge Jonathan Beach clarified that Australian law does not specifically mention that patents have to be invented by a human . Therefore, an AI cannot have the right to apply for a patent, but it can appear as a creator.
Recently, Thaler AI has been listed as the inventor of that idea in a patent registered in South Africa. It is the first country to admit that an artificial intelligence can be considered a creator . In other regions, such as the United Kingdom or the United States, the application was rejected, since it is necessary that the patent be registered by a human. They also do not consider that a robot has legal capacities.
Both the Australian and South African decisions can serve as an example to other countries that previously denied the Dabus patent application .
