Discussion summary
Japan's top court ruled that AI cannot be listed as an inventor on patent applications, reflecting legal and ethical debates. Discussions include the implications for AI-generated inventions and moral considerations.
What the discussion says
- Some argue AI should be recognized as an inventor if it creates something new.
- Others believe AI's contributions are not comparable to human inventors.
- There are concerns about moral and legal implications of AI inventorship.
- The US patent system considers novelty and non-obviousness, which may favor AI recognition.
“AI can't be listed as inventor on patents in Japan.”
“If AI invents something, it should be considered obvious.”
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- The US also doesn't allow AI to be inventors. https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2025/revised-inven...by chaidhat
- I don't personally feel the inevitable UBI/subsistance will make intellectual property much of a patentable/profitable field (...for too much longer), thanks to generative AIs' massive transformations (entrylevel &+).
The US ruled similarly to Japan, but years ago, from copyrights through patents... from my limited POV, the LLMs (specifically) and art models are just regurgitating stolen concepts... echo'ing Picasso's great artists steal! mantra. The US has already ruled this is legal (e.g. newspaper content isn't "stolen" when a genAI summarizes it for a 3rd-party user).
Having sat with published authors, discussing their work/book with LLMs... it is really an interesting perspective on "readers' perspective(s)" [human ¬].
- What’s stopping inventors using ai from simply using their own names as authors and owners of the patents? I’m honestly unsure this addresses the core issue: big companies with lots of resources will keep on patenting ideas, if anything at a far higher rate than before.by claudiosf1
- The plaintiff is Stephen Thaler who has made a career of this litigation all over the world.
To my knowledge, he has notched only one win (i.e., granted patent) in South Africa, where patents are only cursorily examined [1].
The last word in the US is from the Federal Circuit a couple of years ago [2]. Same basic outcome: only a human being can be an inventor.
That said, the new Director of the USPTO has indicated that inventors should feel free to use AI however much they want as long as a human name is on the patent. However, it should be stressed that the Director's guidelines have not been litigated yet.
[1] https://artificialinventor.com/patent/
[2] https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2347.OPINIO...
by jordanpg - Can the petitioner re-file with his own name as the inventor, or does this mean that all AI-generated inventions are unable to be patented?
- If you were seriously trying to patent some AI-created invention, why would you claim it was created by AI? You would simply put your own name on it. This was obviously a case of pushing the envelope to see how far he could go.by allears
- Sanity! No AI has accountability so also should not own any benefits (not only patent but anything beneficial). Violate that and you created a blackhole of value creation.
- The book “against intellectual monopoly” has shaped a lot of my thinking on this topic - economists have looked at the various occasions in which patents were introduced into an industry (or extended in scope), and there is no evidence they actually improve innovation/efficiency/outcomes (including the pharma industry!). I was quite surprised as my whole life, it was sold to me as an incentive-boosting measure which in turn would lead to said outcomes.
With that lens, I welcome gradually phasing this stuff out, especially as we navigate into the unknown game-theory landscape AI-as-inventors brings.
by alzamos