Hylly
Henkilönnimi
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö The Paradox of the DABUS Judgment of the German Federal Patent Court
Julkaistu Verlag C.H. Beck, München : 2022.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa GRUR International, ISSN 2632-8623 ; 71(12)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. The judgment of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) in the Food container case1 holds a unique place in the worldwide series of DABUS2 cases. On the one hand, it confirmed that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be regarded as an inventor under patent law, which has so far been a dominant trend in other jurisdictions concerned with the matter.3 On the other hand, it allowed the applicant Stephen Thaler, who insisted on not having invented the food container, to be designated as the inventor in the patent application, thus, opening up an opportunity for him to become the patent owner. While the case outcome may appear as a constructive compromise, one may question the internal consistency of the court’s reasoning. This analysis shows that the judgment is paradoxical in that, by allowing Thaler to be deemed the inventor of the food container, it contradicts the very principle of human creativity underlying the inventor’s (moral) right to be named – the principle that was relied upon by the adjudicating Board when denying the designation of DABUS as the inventor.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke GRUR International, 2632-8623 ; 71(12)
Elektronisen aineiston sijainti ja käyttö (URI) https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac125 Linkki verkkoaineistoon
*000 ab a ar
*00117275
*008 s2022||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*1001 $aKim, Daria,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aThe Paradox of the DABUS Judgment of the German Federal Patent Court /$cDaria Kim
*264 1$aMünchen :$bVerlag C.H. Beck,$c2022.
*300 $as. 1162–1166
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v71(12)
*520 $aThe judgment of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) in the Food container case1 holds a unique place in the worldwide series of DABUS2 cases. On the one hand, it confirmed that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be regarded as an inventor under patent law, which has so far been a dominant trend in other jurisdictions concerned with the matter.3 On the other hand, it allowed the applicant Stephen Thaler, who insisted on not having invented the food container, to be designated as the inventor in the patent application, thus, opening up an opportunity for him to become the patent owner. While the case outcome may appear as a constructive compromise, one may question the internal consistency of the court’s reasoning. This analysis shows that the judgment is paradoxical in that, by allowing Thaler to be deemed the inventor of the food container, it contradicts the very principle of human creativity underlying the inventor’s (moral) right to be named – the principle that was relied upon by the adjudicating Board when denying the designation of DABUS as the inventor.
*650 7$ateollisoikeus$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3067
*650 7$apatentit$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3069$2yso/fin
*650 7$asäilytys astiat$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p22127$2yso/fin
*650 7$aelintarviketeollisuus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3373$2yso/fin
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$atekoäly$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2616
*653 $aSAKSA
*830 0$aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v71(12)
*852 $hSA-GRUR International
*85641$uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac125$yLinkki verkkoaineistoon
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.