That UK Supreme Court determined that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be recognized as inventor in the process patent registration.

This decision follows the case of Dr. Stephen Thalerdefenders of AI systems are called DABUSwho tries to assume the technology is considered to be the creator of a food container and one light signal.

With this decision it was decided that these machines could not be accredited with patent ownership.

This decision is in accordance with the position previously taken by US Patent and Trademark Office opposed Thaler’s request for the same, thus maintaining that criterion only Man one of company They can be considered legitimate inventors.

In the 2019He Dr submitted an application for its AI system DABUS named as the inventor of two previous products Intellectual Property Office (IPO) from great Britainwhich was rejected.

Judge David Kitchin He explained that the rejection was based on the absence of a legal framework that recognized machines as creators.

According to the cloaked man, “we are not thinking here of new tangible goods produced by existing goods. “We are concerned about the unclear concept of new devices and methods.”

Despite recent progress and debate surrounding the role of AI in this technological innovationBritish court decisions emphasized that “an inventor must be a natural person.”

This is based on the interpretation of the Patent Law England 1977where is the judge kitchen He stated that “DABUS was not and was not an inventor” and because he was not human, he could not have made the discovery.

Meanwhile, Thaler’s lawyer believes that the current law is like that “inadequate” to protect discoveries generated by AI, which could impact industries that depend on this technology for the development of new applications.

In fact, this case has gone beyond legal questions to open the case debate about how laws will be created in the future to regulate the growing influence of AI in all aspects of society.

The controversy generated by the case Thaler has sparked debate in the fields of law and technology, both in the fields of law and technology great Britain as in United States of Americawhich gives rise to the need to review current legislation regarding the legal protection of material generated by AI systems.

Next, in United States of Americalegislators analyze whether art or other material created through AI may receive protection under existing intellectual property laws, highlighting the challenges this revolutionary technology poses to the current legal framework.

Experts highlight that interesting policy questions arise regarding how the law might be adjusted as artificial intelligence develops, reflecting possible changes in intellectual property rights in the context of work produced by AI models.

Beyond the current case, this court decision has broader implications, underscoring the need to consider legislative reforms that adapt to advances in AI.

And even though the decision is in great Britain To be sure, Thaler has found different results in other jurisdictions, gaining recognition for DABUS as an inventor in both south Africa as in Australiaeach with their own legal decisions supporting the possibility of AI being recognized as an inventor.