Content deleted Content added
Reference included |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title, template type. Add: magazine, ssrn. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by 16dvnk | Category:Artificial intelligence | #UCB_Category 13/198 |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
The '''
▲'''The Artificial Inventor Project''' (AIP) is a legal advocacy initiative headed by Professor [[Ryan Abbott (lawyer)|Ryan Abbott]] dedicated to pursuing [[intellectual property]] (IP) rights for inventions and creative works generated autonomously by artificial intelligence (AI) systems without traditional human inventorship or authorship. The project coordinates a series of pro bono test cases worldwide, aiming to prompt law reform and public debate on how IP law should accommodate non-human creators.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Research Portal |url=https://openresearch.surrey.ac.uk/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/AI-Generated-Output-and-Intellectual-Property-Rights/99758265802346 |access-date=2025-07-25 |website=openresearch.surrey.ac.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=AI-Generated Output and Intellectual Property Rights: Takeaways from the Artificial Inventor Project |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5083475 |journal=Social Science Research Network}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Bedingfield |first=Will |title=The Inventor Behind a Rush of AI Copyright Suits Is Trying to Show His Bot Is Sentient |url=https://www.wired.com/story/the-inventor-behind-a-rush-of-ai-copyright-suits-is-trying-to-show-his-bot-is-sentient/ |access-date=2025-07-25 |work=Wired |language=en-US |issn=1059-1028}}</ref>
== History ==
In 2019, AIP filed patent applications in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Patent Office, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa, naming the AI system [[DABUS]] (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), created by Stephen Thaler, as the inventor.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Artificial Inventor Project |url=https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/article-details/?assetRef=41111&title=the-artificial-inventor-project |access-date=2025-07-25 |website=www.wipo.int |language=en-US}}</ref>
The aim was to challenge legal norms that require inventors to be natural persons and highlight pressing policy questions about AI-generated innovation and IP regimes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wilming |first=Martin |date=2024-10-09 |title=The 'Artificial Inventor' in Switzerland |url=https://www.patentlitigation.ch/the-artificial-inventor-in-switzerland/ |access-date=2025-07-28 |website=FPC Review |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/exhibit-ai/additional-resources/exhibit-ai---exhibit-15-additional-resources.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=August 2025}}</ref>▼
== Legal proceedings by jurisdiction ==
=== Australia ===
In July 2021, the [[Federal Court of Australia]] ruled that AI can be considered an inventor under the Patents Act 1990, ordering IP Australia to reinstate the relevant patent.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2021-07-31 |title=Can artificial intelligence be an inventor? A landmark Australian court decision says it can |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-01/historic-decision-allows-ai-to-be-recognised-as-an-inventor/100339264 |access-date=2025-07-29 |work=ABC News |language=en-AU}}</ref> Though this ruling was later overturned on appeal<ref>https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2021/879.html {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2025}}</ref> and further review denied.<ref>https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2022/62.html {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2025}}</ref>
=== United Kingdom ===
In December 2023, the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|UK Supreme Court]] unanimously held that AI systems cannot be legally recognized as inventors, affirming that "an inventor must be a person" under current British law.<ref>{{Citation |last= |title=Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 |date=21 September 2021 |url=https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1374.html |access-date=2025-07-29}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 |date=20 December 2023 |url=https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/49.html |access-date=2025-07-29}}</ref>
=== United States ===
In ''Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021)'', a U.S. federal court agreed with the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|USPTO]] that inventors must be natural persons, rejecting the DABUS application and setting a precedent consistent with existing statute and administrative policy.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Porter |first=Jon |date=2020-04-29 |title=US patent office rules that artificial intelligence cannot be a legal inventor |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21241251/artificial-intelligence-inventor-united-states-patent-trademark-office-intellectual-property |access-date=2025-07-29 |website=The Verge |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Willingham |first=A. J. |date=2020-04-30 |title=Artificial Intelligence can't technically invent things, says patent office |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/us/artificial-intelligence-inventing-patent-office-trnd |access-date=2025-07-29 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>
=== European Patent Office ===
The [[European Patent Office|EPO]] Board of Appeal determined in 2022 that only a human inventor may be named, rendering DABUS‑based applications unacceptable.<ref>{{Cite web |title=AI cannot be named as inventor on patent applications |url=https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/ai-cannot-be-named-inventor-patent-applications-0}}</ref>
=== South Africa ===
In 2021, a patent was granted listing DABUS as the inventor. As South Africa’s procedural system does not involve substantive inventorship review, the grant proceeded on formal grounds alone.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Oriakhogba |first=Desmond |date=2021 |title=Dabus Gains Territory in South Africa and Australia: Revisiting the AI-Inventorship Question |journal=South African Journal of Intellectual Property Law |volume=9 |pages=87–108 |doi=10.47348/SAIPL/v9/a5 |s2cid=245993919 |ssrn=3998162}}</ref>
=== Switzerland ===
On 26 June 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors on patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), affirming that only natural persons may be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Marjanović |first=Petar |date=2025-07-04 |title=Schweizer Gericht urteilt: Nur Menschen können Erfinder sein |url=https://www.bluewin.ch/de/news/schweiz/schweizer-gericht-urteilt-nur-menschen-koennen-erfinder-sein-2769434.html |access-date=2025-07-04 |website=blue News |language=de}}</ref>
== Criticism and impact ==
▲The aim was to challenge legal norms that require inventors to be natural persons and highlight pressing policy questions about AI-generated innovation and IP regimes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wilming |first=Martin |date=2024-10-09 |title=The 'Artificial Inventor' in Switzerland |url=https://www.patentlitigation.ch/the-artificial-inventor-in-switzerland/ |access-date=2025-07-28 |website=FPC Review |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/exhibit-ai/additional-resources/exhibit-ai---exhibit-15-additional-resources.pdf</ref>
The project has fueled substantial discourse. Critics caution that allowing AI inventorship may complicate notions of accountability and ownership. Proponents argue that legal recognition must evolve to avoid disincentivizing innovation produced by AI and to maintain honesty about the true source of invention.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Artificial Inventor Project and the Case for AI Inventorship |url=https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/exhibit-ai/additional-resources/exhibit-ai---exhibit-15-additional-resources.pdf |website=law.wm.edu}}</ref>
== References ==
<!-- Inline citations added to your article will automatically display here. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REFB for instructions on how to add citations. -->
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Artificial intelligence]]
[[Category:Patent law]]
| |||