Guy Is Suing the Patent Office for Deciding an AI Can't Invent Things

This court case isn’t about whether AI can invent things. It’s about whether AIs can receive patents.

Normally, non-natural persons (a funny legal way of saying organizations) can do anything natural people (human beings) can do under the law (e.g. file lawsuits, sign contracts). However, there are some privileges that are reserved only for natural persons, and one of those is receiving patents (which can later be transferred to any entity).

Plainly, the AI is not a natural person. It can certainly invent things, but the government doesn’t choose to grant it a monopoly for manufacturing said inventions.

This ruling does not in any way suggest that you can’t patent an invention created by an AI. All you have to do is say that the AI is a tool that you, the inventor, used.

Just because you used an AI to create an invention doesn’t mean the AI gets the patent, anymore then Microsoft Word gets a copyright on what people type in it.

> “Such tools are not capable of true independent creativity. In order for AI tools to create new work, prior creative work must be used as training data”

Isn't this exactly how humans do it too?