Shell‘s decision to appeal sends the “wrong signal” according to Milieudefensie’s director Donald Pols. “Shell should act now, as the judge ordered. The...
Chiefs Esports Club, also known as The Chiefs, has been fined $1,800 (A$2,500) for “unsportsmanlike behavior.” After being disrespectful in a game against...
The latest issue of Music & Copyright is now available for subscribers to download. Here are some of the highlights. Court rules no share of UMPG’s Bob Dylan acquisition proceeds should go to coauthor estate A New York court has ruled that the estate of songwriter Jacques Levy is not entitled to a share of … Continue reading New issue of Music & Copyright with Austria country report→
In recent days, special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, have been growing in popularity among founders who are keen to take their companies...
As I recently (tentatively) predicted, on Friday 30 July 2021 Justice Beach in the Federal Court of Australia handed down a judgment giving Australia the dubious honour of becoming the first country in the world to legally recognise a non-human as a valid inventor on a patent application: Thaler v Commissioner of Patents[2021] FCA 879. I would suggest that the remarkable speed with which this unnecessarily lengthy (228 paragraphs) decision was rendered, after being heard on 2 July 2021, may reflect the judge’s enthusiasm for issuing such a ground-breaking ruling. Unfortunately, I do not share that enthusiasm, and I am confident that there are many others who are equally uncomfortable with the outcome. My hope is that this includes officials within IP Australia and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and that the decision will be duly appealed to a Full Bench of the court. It is, in my view, deeply regrettable that the Commissioner of Patents did not put on a stronger defence in the first instance because, even though an appeal was probably inevitable either way, the worldwide publicity that this decision is now generating is not necessarily beneficial for Australia.
The judge summarised his reasoning (at [10]) that:
…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.
The patent system faces many challenges, but right now a need to grant more patents in a wider range of circumstances in not one of them. We are in the grip of a global pandemic, and very serious questions are being asked about whether patents deliver a net benefit to the people of the world by incentivising the development of new vaccines and treatments, or whether they have the detrimental effect of denying affordable access to vital care and protection in poor and developing nations. While I am firmly in the former camp, it only becomes harder to defend the patent system when opponents see the law expanding access to allow inventions generated by machines – potentially including those owned and controlled by giant corporations.
So what does Australia gain by being the first – and possibly only – country in the world to legally recognise non-human inventors? Nothing, as far as I can see, other than a whole lot of unneeded publicity and global scrutiny of our patent laws. If we are lucky, we will not receive many serious patent applications for inventions generated by machine inventors, and little practical harm will be done. At worst, however, we could become the only country in the world to grant patents on such inventions, mostly filed by foreign applicants, creating exclusive rights that are enforceable only in Australia to the relative detriment of Australian innovators and consumers.
Number of 'strong remaining competitors' within the market planning expansions of their own, says CMA The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has...
Environmental lawyer Steven Donziger was found guilty of criminal contempt by U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska Monday for refusing a judge’s order...
In urgent preliminary proceedings, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has upheld two injunctions against TCL, handed down by the city’s first-instance Regional Court...