KUALA LUMPUR, July 21, 2021 - (ACN Newswire) - Haily Group Berhad ("Haily" or the "Group") has debuted on the ACE Market of Bursa Malaysia Securities today...
Moscow’s Troika transport smartcard becomes available at Sberbank Online, mobile application of the biggest bank of Russia, Sberbank. In order to buy or...
The famous American cryptocurrency exchange giant FTX.COM announced the completion of a $900 million Series B financing dedicated to expanding FTX's international influence,...
GWANGJU, Korea, July 21, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- JDTEK, a Korean cooperation robot manufacturer specialized in measuring instruments, cooperation robots and inspection automation systems,...
Cross-border payments firm Thunes has announced the acquisition of its European counterpart Limonetik which is one of the earliest developers of an alternative payment...
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) is installed in places with abundant sunlight all year round. Most CSP types collect solar radiation through mirrors(reflectors) with...
Medikabazaar, the one-stop B2B platform for medical supplies, has announced that following the strengthening of its executive team, it will focus on...
India’s leading payment gateway Pine Labs has appointed Rangaprasad Rangarajan as the Head of Engineering – Online Payments. The company aims to build...
pinBox, a global PensionTech working towards providing digital micro-pension and social security inclusion, has raised $ 1 million in funding from Venture Catalysts...
Regular readers will know my position on this issue – I do not consider it appropriate at this time (or, potentially, ever) to grant patents for inventions devised entirely by automated means, such that there is no human inventor. I have written an article targeted to a more general audience, which has been published by InnovationAus, providing an overview of the Australian case, and broadly discussing my concerns. Here I will be going into more detail of the arguments presented at the recent hearing, and why I think it would be very unfortunate if Justice Beach were to decide that this is a suitable case for judicial development of the law to embrace machine inventors, as he is being encouraged to do by Thaler.
I was able to attend the hearing virtually, since it was being held via web conference. Thaler’s team, led by experienced and highly-regarded barrister David Shavin QC, appeared in person in the Melbourne courtroom with Justice Beach, while the Commissioner of Patents was represented by Hamish Bevan, appearing via video from Sydney (subject to restrictions, due to an ongoing COVID outbreak). Although I disagree with the proposition, I thought that Mr Shavin presented a persuasive argument that the relevant provisions of the Australian Patents Act 1990 can, and should, be interpreted to encompass non-human inventors, and that Mr Bevan perhaps did not do enough to counter this argument. I formed the impression that Justice Beach just might be minded to ‘develop’ the Australian law to permit patent applications having no human inventor, in part because he was not presented with any particularly good reasons not to do so.