Thaler Presentati
Santiago
Created on March 5, 2024
More creations to inspire you
AC/DC
Presentation
THE MESOZOIC ERA
Presentation
ALL THE THINGS
Presentation
ASTL
Presentation
ENGLISH IRREGULAR VERBS
Presentation
VISUAL COMMUNICATION AND STORYTELLING
Presentation
GROWTH MINDSET
Presentation
Transcript
"Here comes the pigeon"
"I'm not a thief; I steal, but sometimes"
"Hit me! Hit me!"
Presented with Colombian* Iconic Moments
Or why lawyers shouldn't be deciding cases that they don't fully comprehend
Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
10. Issue 311. Decision12. Discusion
9. Issue 2
8. Issue 1
7. What is it about?
6. Comptroller's arguments
5. Thaler's Arguments
4. Claims
3. Applicable law
2. Facts of the case
1. Introduction
Index
News commentator: This man will kindly show us how to use a face-mask, because people are using it wrong.The kind man*:
Introduction
Vincit qui patitur
Facts of the case
- On October of 2018, Thaler filed two applications under the Patents Act of 1977.
- The Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO") responded to the applications on November of 2018, seeking further information. Thaler would need to file a statement of inventorship.
- On July of 2019, Thaler filed the statements for each application, indicating that the author was an AI system and that he owned the system. Therefore, owned the creations of it.
- On August of 2019, UKIPO replied that Thaler had not complied with the requirements of the Act. Was asked to file a replacement. If he failed to do so, the applications would be taken to be withdrawn. He indeed filed it, and was denied again.
- Then, Dr. Thaler made his case to: (i) a judge of the High Court, and (ii) a Court of Appeal. Both cases, confirmed the decision of the comptroller.
Facts
UK Patent Act of 1977
Applicable law
7 Right to apply for and obtain a patent. (1) Any person may make an application for a patent either alone or jointly with another. (2) A patent for an invention may be granted— (a) primarily to the inventor or joint inventors; (b) in preference to the foregoing, to any person or persons who, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law, or any foreign law or treaty or international convention, or by virtue of an enforceable term of any agreement entered into with the inventor before the making of the invention, was or were at the time of the making of the invention entitled to the whole of the property in it (other than equitable interests) in the United Kingdom; (c) in any event, to the successor or successors in title of any person or persons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above or any person so mentioned and the successor or successors in title of another person so mentioned; and to no other person. (3) In this Act ‘inventor’ in relation to an invention means the actual deviser of the invention and ‘joint inventor’ shall be construed accordingly. (4) Except so far as the contrary is established, a person who makes an application for a patent shall be taken to be the person who is entitled under subsection (2) above to be granted a patent and two or more persons who make such an application jointly shall be taken to be the persons so entitled.” [emphasis added]
Section 7: the right to apply for and obtain a patent
13 Mention of inventor. (1) The inventor or joint inventors of an invention shall have a right to be mentioned as such in any patent granted for the invention and shall also have a right to be so mentioned if possible in any published application for a patent for the invention and, if not so mentioned, a right to be so mentioned in accordance with rules in a prescribed document. (2) Unless he has already given the Patent Office the information hereinafter mentioned, an applicant for a patent shall within the prescribed period file with the Patent Office a statement— (a) identifying the person or persons whom he believes to be the inventor or inventors; and (b) where the applicant is not the sole inventor or the applicants are not the joint inventors, indicating the derivation of his or their right to be granted the patent; and, if he fails to do so, the application shall be taken to be withdrawn. (3) Where a person has been mentioned as sole or joint inventor in pursuance of this section, any other person who alleges that the former ought not to have been so mentioned may at any time apply to the comptroller for a certificate to that effect, and the comptroller may issue such a certificate; and if he does so, he shall accordingly rectify any undistributed copies of the patent and of any documents prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above.” [Emphasis added].
Section 13: the right to be mentioned as inventor, and the provision of information by the applicant.
DR THALER:
"I scream FUAAAAA and I take out the power and the strength. That is the FUAAAA"
Then, What does DR.Thaler seeks
"Long live Colombia, long live Falcao, the strongest and bravest tiger on the field."
Thaler's arguments
- The owner of a machine which embodies an AI system is entitled to inventions created or generated by the machine, and to apply for and secure the grant of patents for those inventions if they meet the other statutory requirements for patentability.
- An applicant for such patent is not required to name a natural person as an inventor to meet the requirements. Therefore, Thaler complied with the requirements of Section 13 - 2 of the Act. As he identified the who he believes to be the inventor and how hi has a derivative right.
- In any event the Comptroller had no proper basis under the Act for refusing these applications in the manner and for the reasons he did.
Arguments:
"My wife is angry, she's complaining at me, oh, I'm in the news now. HIII!!!"
The Comptroller:
Comptroller's arguments
- Under the Act, an inventor must be a natural person.
- Thaler did not identify the person who he believed was the inventor. As he established in multiple times that the inventor of those creations was DABUS.
- That is enough (?)
Arguments:
What is it not about?
What is this case about?
Because is obvious ***** clown that an american leggins it is not worth 40.000 COP.
An inventor within the meaning of the 1977 Act must be a natural person, and DABUS is not a person at all.Reasons given: (i) “deviser” is a person in its ordinary meaning, (ii) It has been established in previous cases that an inventor is the natural person who came up with the inventive concept (Lord Hoffman, Yeda Research), and (iii) there is no suggestions in the provisions that an inventor may be a machine.
Issue 1The scope and meaning of inventor in the 1977 Act
"The one that seems like lemon, which is tamarind, but tastes like hibiscus."
Two formidable difficulties: (i) Dabus is a machine with no legal personality; and (ii) Dr. Thaler has no independent right to obtain a patent in respect of any such technical advance. Furthermore, Section 7 does not grant anyone the right to obtain a patent for an invention created by a machine. Dr. Thaler made two final arguments regarding this point: (i) Doctrine of accession: (ii) Employee/ employer analogy.
issue 2:Was Dr Thaler nevertheless the owner of any invention in any technical advance made by DABUS and entitled to apply for and obtain a patent in respect of it?
"Woman with woman, man with man, likewise, in the opposite direction."
Short answer, yes, he plainly was.
Issue 3:Was the Hearing Officer entitled to hold that the applications would be taken to be withdrawn?
"The sports section ends here. Country of ".
"99. For all of these reasons, I am satisfied the Comptroller was right to find the applications would be taken to be withdrawn at the expiry of the sixteen-month period specified by rule 10(3). The judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal made no error in affirming that decision and in finding that the applications are now deemed to have been withdrawn. I would dismiss this appeal."
Decision
""I don't know, maybe I like the adrenaline."
Thaler opting to establish that the inventor was DABUS:
- What would’ve happened if Thaler said that he was the author?
- What happens if it is collaborative work?
- What happened with Naruto in Naruto v Slater? Is it fair that AI and animals recieved the same IP treatment?
- Scope of the concept of “person”.
- Should the Patents Act of 1977 be amended?
Discussion: