L’intelligenza artificiale può essere “inventor” per il diritto australiano

La querelle aperta dal dr. Thaler con la sua DABUS machine, che sta cercando di ottenere brevetto inventivo a nome proprio ma come avente causa dall’inventore costituito da intelligenza artificiale (IA), trova ora una soluzione posiiva in Australia.

Qui la Corte Federale con decisione 30.07.2021, Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879, file n° VID 108 of 2021, con analitico esame,  riforma la decisione amministrativa di rifiuto.

<<Now whilst DABUS, as an artificial intelligence system, is not a legal person and cannot legally assign the invention, it does not follow that it is not possible to derive title from DABUS. The language of s 15(1)(c) recognises that the rights of a person who derives title to the invention from an inventor extend beyond assignments to encompass other means by which an interest may be conferred.>>, § 178

Per cui dr. Thaler legittimanente dichiara di essere avente causa da DABUS: <<In my view, Dr Thaler, as the owner and controller of DABUS, would own any inventions made by DABUS, when they came into his possession. In this case, Dr Thaler apparently obtained possession of the invention through and from DABUS.  And as a consequence of his possession of the invention, combined with his ownership and control of DABUS, he prima facie obtained title to the invention.  By deriving possession of the invention from DABUS, Dr Thaler prima facie derived title.  In this respect, title can be derived from the inventor notwithstanding that it vests ab initio other than in the inventor.  That is, there is no need for the inventor ever to have owned the invention, and there is no need for title to be derived by an assignment.>>, § 189.

E poi: <<In my view on the present material there is a prima facie basis for saying that Dr Thaler is a person who derives title from the inventor, DABUS, by reason of his possession of DABUS, his ownership of the copyright in DABUS’ source code, and his ownership and possession of the computer on which it resides. Now more generally there are various possibilities for patent ownership of the output of an artificial intelligence system. First, one might have the software programmer or developer of the artificial intelligence system, who no doubt may directly or via an employer own copyright in the program in any event.  Second, one might have the person who selected and provided the input data or training data for and trained the artificial intelligence system.  Indeed, the person who provided the input data may be different from the trainer.  Third, one might have the owner of the artificial intelligence system who invested, and potentially may have lost, their capital to produce the output.  Fourth, one might have the operator of the artificial intelligence system.  But in the present case it would seem that Dr Thaler is the owner>>, §§ 193-194.

In sitnesi, <<in my view an artificial intelligence system can be an inventor for the purposes of the Act. First, an inventor is an agent noun; an agent can be a person or thing that invents.  Second, so to hold reflects the reality in terms of many otherwise patentable inventions where it cannot sensibly be said that a human is the inventor.  Third, nothing in the Act dictates the contrary conclusion.>>, § 10.

Si osservi che dr Thaler <<is the owner of copyright in DABUS’s source code. He is also the owner, is responsible for and is the operator of the computer on which DABUS operates.  But Dr Thaler is not the inventor of the alleged invention the subject of the application.  The inventor is identified on the application as “DABUS, The invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence”.  DABUS is not a natural or legal person.  DABUS is an artificial intelligence system that incorporates artificial neural networks.>>, § 8

Avevo segnalato il precedente inglese contrario con post 02.10.2020.

Un mese prima dr. Thaler aveva ottenuto il brevetto sulla stessa invenzione in Sud Africa: ne dà notizia www.ipwatchdog.com con post 29 luglio u.s. ove anche il link al documento amministrativo in cui si legge che l’istante è Thaler ma l’inventore è DABUS.

(notizia e link alla sentenza da gestaltlaw.com)