AI, the Inventor
Perhaps the best way to understand the patents system is to think about it as an economic tool.
We want people to invent things because new technology helps to move our society forward. However, there would be little incentive to create new things if the inventor was not able to take advantage of their innovation.
This is where the patent system steps in. It allows exclusive rights to an invention for a set period of time, thus an inventor has a practical and financial incentive to go forth and create.
This system dates back hundreds of years and is the legal background to a whole host of new technologies that we take for granted today. However, as technology develops even further, and we witness the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), we have to ask if the patent system is still fit for purpose.
That is the subject of my podcast this week where I cover the case of Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49. The proceedings stem from an application made by Thaler for the grant of patents, but he insisted that he was not the inventor. Instead, it was submitted that the inventor was DABUS, an AI system that he owned and created.
In the end, the Supreme Court held that an inventor has to be a natural person like you or me and that DABUS could not be an inventor. This was based on a reading of the legislation as well as relevant case law.
Nevertheless, this interesting case should make us think carefully about whether the law should change. After all, Thaler might well own DABUS, but it is probably more accurate to say that it was the artificial intelligence that actually came up with the inventions. Should the law not reflect this state of affairs?
Ultimately, the answer is probably “no”. If we are talking in purely practical terms then I think that we can come to rightly regard AI as inventing new products and processes. However, this ignores the central purpose of the patent system which seeks to promote innovation in a capitalist society by guaranteeing rights to the person behind the invention.
A machine could not care less about those rights or financial advantages, no matter how many patentable inventions it churns out.
There is space for AI in the world of patents, but the exact form that should take is not yet clear. It only seems right that AI should be credited for the inventions that it comes up with, but this also needs to be linked to a human being or, at the very least, a company.
As Parliament grapples with AI and how it should be regulated, patents are just one part of a much broader discussion.
Episode link: https://uklawweekly.com/2023-uksc-48-and-49/
Make a difference today,
Marcus