AI cannot be named as patent ‘inventor’, UK supreme court rules | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian
The judge said the IPO was entitled to find that Thaler’s applications should be taken as “withdrawn” under patent rules because “he failed to identify any person or persons whom he believed to be the inventor or inventors of the inventions described in the applications”.
The supreme court also rejected Thaler’s argument that he was entitled to apply for patents for DABUS inventions on the basis that he was the AI’s owner.
Kitchin said DABUS was “a machine with no legal personality” and that Dr Thaler “has no independent right to obtain a patent in respect of any such technical advance”.
My readers, this ruling over AI inventions from the UK is hilarious. Here are three possible abstraction for the ownership of the invention in 3 different phases.
* The AI made the invention therefore the AI owns the invention
* I own the AI, the AI owns the invention
* I own the AI, the AI owns the invention, therefore I own the invention
My readers, wherever you are in the world, I will never want to hide a book like CTTD in print versions behind some backdoor at a Bluesie jazz comedy fest. Do not make me something other than human and humane with my books. Give your support. CTTD has been a lesson in law. Justice must be achieved. Give your support and hold on to the relativity.
PLEASE DONATE TO SUPPORT THE FREE BOOKS FOR LIFE CAUSE
You may choose to donate whatever you may through lomopeju@protonmail.com PayPal handle. You may also support by buying music by ril. Find ril at BANDCAMP. Thank you.




