An AI system has been programmed to generate ideas. Therefore, by extension, intellectual property has been generated by that AI. A group is arguing that the AI should be recognised as the inventor. But is this right?
Under current law, only a person can be acknowledged as an inventor. But could this change in the future? Should it? The academics behind the AI say that it should, and that the current law is outdated.
My opinion is that the law as it stands at the moment isn't problematic. This news story shares common ground with the question of whether a macaque owns the copyright in a selfie it took of itself. Not wishing to be too cynical, but I feel that both stories have been engineered to raise the profile of a particular group or cause.
Nonetheless, it does raise an important question we need to properly consider as AI becomes increasingly sophisticated. If AI genuinely becomes self-aware, and is able argue its own case that it should be named as an inventor, maybe then we should let it.
Mind you, by that time, we may have bigger problems to contend with...
For more information contact our Patent Registration Service team.
"The current state of technological development suggests that, for the foreseeable future, AI is... a tool used by a human inventor. "Any change... [would] have implications reaching far beyond patent law, ie to authors' rights under copyright laws, civil liability and data protection.