AI Recognized as an Inventor in Australia

 Interesting, should this be the case?   Most AI does not invent.  Does an optimization of a supply chain invent?  Patents and their origins and application will have to be rethought.

AI Can Now Be Recognized as an Inventor  By ABC (Australia)

Australia's Federal Court has granted artificial intelligence (AI) systems legal recognition as inventors in patent applications, challenging the assumption that invention is a purely human act.

The decision recognizes DABUS (device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience), an AI system whose creators have long argued can autonomously perform the "inventive step" required to qualify for a patent.

DABUS is a swarm of disconnected neutral networks that continuously generate "thought processes" and "memories" which independently produce new and inventive outputs.

It has "invented" a design for a container based on fractal geometry, and a "device and method for attracting enhanced attention" that makes light flicker in a pattern mimicking human neural activity. Although DABUS is listed as the inventor, its creator Stephen Thaler owns the patent, which means the push for the AI's inventor status is not an attempt to advocate for AI property rights.

From ABC (Australia)  Full article.

US Patent Office Says AI Cannot be an Inventor

Relates to some work underway.

US patent office rules that artificial intelligence cannot be a legal inventor

Only ‘natural persons’ need apply     By Jon Porter@JonPorty in TheVerge

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ruled that artificial intelligence systems cannot be credited as an inventor in a patent, the agency announced earlier this week. The decision came in response to two patents — one for a food container and the other for a flashing light — that were created by an AI system called DABUS.

Among the USPTO’s arguments is the fact that US patent law repeatedly refers to inventors using humanlike terms such as “whoever” and pronouns like “himself” and “herself.” The group behind the applications had argued that the law’s references to an inventor as an “individual” could be applied to a machine, but the USPTO said this interpretation was too broad. “Under current law, only natural persons may be named as an inventor in a patent application,” the agency concluded. .... " 

Artificial Inventor Project: http://artificialinventor.com/patent-applications/
DABUS/Creativity Machine: http://imagination-engines.com/iei_dabus.php