Previously, the Australian court had accepted that artificial intelligence could be an inventor, while the USA had rejected it. The UK has also decided that artificial intelligence cannot enjoy human rights because it is not suitable for the human character.
Performing tasks with commands recorded through codes artificial intelligence systems day by day, it is involved in every aspect of our lives. Today, it is used quite frequently, especially in the fields of automotive, video games and finance/economics. Recently, robots developed with artificial intelligence the right to be an inventor being discussed.
Dr. Developed by Stephen Thaler DABUS Thanks to its excellent equipment, the artificial intelligence system can suggest many ideas and inventions. Dr. Thaler had repeatedly applied for a patent on behalf of DABUS and was rejected. The English court also said that artificial intelligence was developed with software. deprived of human rights, therefore he decided that he could not hold a patent.
Dr. Thaler was also denied on appeal:
According to the recent decision of the Australian Federal Court, DABUS, to be seen as an inventor but the owner of the patent, the developer of DABUS, Dr. He would be accepted as Stephen Thaler. Dr. Thaler agrees to submit its patents under its own name. when you refuse The UK Patent and Intellectual Property Office has removed Thaler from the registration process. Thaler sued the Patent Offices, lost the case. Thaler, who refused to accept the refusal, appealed and lost again. Judge Elisabeth Laing on Appeal said artificial intelligence could only have basic human rights, because patenting was a legal right. Only He stated that it can be given to one person.
Talks about artificial intelligence rights have been coming up frequently lately and will undoubtedly continue to come. We will sit down and see how far the artificial intelligence discussions will go.
The United States had refused, Australia had affirmed:
The debate on whether artificial intelligence can be an inventor, which has been going on for weeks, had come to a head with the approval of Australia. But a few weeks later, the United States rejected the same application on the grounds of the inventor’s definition in the law.