מעודכן ל: 9.4.2024
Robins Kaplan, Q&A: the crossroads where generative AI meets copyright law, Westlaw Today, 2023 WL 6545295 (Oct. 9, 2023).
Thaler v. Hirshfeld, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.S. § 100(f), requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings. Congress has determined that only a natural person can be an inventor, so artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be. Nothing in the Patent Act indicates Congress intended to deviate from the default meaning. The Patent Act uses personal pronouns to refer to an "individual" under 35 U.S.C.S. § 115(b)(2). While the court did not decide whether an AI system can form beliefs, nothing in the record showed that one could.
Esther C. Roditti, Intellectual Property Issues & Artificial Intelligence, in Computer Contracts (MB) § 3A.07, Lexis (Database updated Dec. 2022).
מעודכן ל: 9.4.2024
כל האזכורים של מקורות יש לאזכר לפי כללי האזכור האחיד והבלובוק. סרטוני הדרכה על אזכור חקיקה ופסיקה.
|