[USPTO] - To Patent or Not To Patent A.I.
The Synopsis:
On February 13, 2024, The United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO], in accordance to the Executive Order 14110, has officiated a guidance that requires a human to be the significant contributor to an A.I. - assisted invention. Tangentially, The THALER V. VIDAL was a court case in which Stephen Thaler’s patent application for an A.I. system, DABUS, was denied. USPTO’s decision has been upheld since the denial and served as an example for future cases.1
The Analysis:
Patents protect inventors and their inventions, giving them exclusive rights; The USPTO explicates that a human has to be a significant contributor to the invention; though, I believe that contribution is subjective. Subjectivity is useful because inventors detail their contribution to the invention, based on their own metric; this permits inventors to gauge truthfully their involvement in the invention. However, the inventor’s subjectivity is questionable because the inventor may understate or overstate his or her contribution to the invention. Therefore, the USPTO created rules, such as the Pannu criteria [AI Cannot be an Inventor, Human Inventors Must Make Significant Contributions] to measure the contribution of humans and A.I. machine of an invention. Moreover, A.I. - assisted inventions are not merely the work of the inventor and invention but also a collaborative, public support and effort. Patenting, ironically, can stifle innovation because only certain person(s) have exclusive rights to use the invention, and the licensees have to pay to use it. Low socioeconomic user(s) may have difficulty in paying for the service that could, literally and figuratively, save their community. In a previous article, I stated that capitalism underpins the American ethos, and it is heart of the debate in democratizing technology.
I am an adherent to open-source initiatives because user(s) are permitted to modify, enhance, and customize the aforesaid technology to use in their respective communities. The question ‘To Patent or Not To Patent A.I.’ should be answered with ‘To Make Open Source’ which is the true measurement of innovation and creativity.
The Questions:
Q1: What do you believe should be a human’s ‘significant’ contribution to an invention? How do we measure significance?
Q2: Do you believe patents stifle innovation? Why or why not?
Q3: Would there be a time in which A.I. could be an inventor of patent, such as A.G.I. entity? Would laws still apply?
Q4: What criteria would you add or remove to ensure patentability of inventions intertwined with A.I.?
The Endnotes:
1 The Verge, “US patent office confirms AI can’t hold patents”, The Verge , accessed Feb 14, 2024,
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/24072241/ai-patent-us-office-guidance