[AI Invented a New Drug—Whose Credit Is It? Court Says: Only Humans Count 🤖💊⚖️]
Designing drugs with AI is already as fast as ChatGPT writing text 😱
The biotech company Insilico used an AI model
to design a new drug molecule
for treating pulmonary fibrosis
and even boldly announced: this is an “AI-discovered” 💊
But when applying for a patent,
all the inventors listed were humans:
CEO and four others—AI wasn’t mentioned at all 🤔
Why?
Because U.S. law requires inventors to be “individuals”—meaning humans.
Machines aren’t people, so they can’t be inventors ⚖️
In 2022, there was a well-known test case:
someone tried to list an AI (called DABUS) as the inventor
and the court rejected it outright, saying:
“Set aside the metaphysical debate—law recognizes only humans.”
But as AI involvement keeps increasing,
this rule is starting to be questioned 🤨
Even the U.S. Patent Office has acknowledged:
AI can “participate” in an invention like any other tool.
It’s just that it will never get its name on the credits ledger.
Now the whole industry is asking:
If AI contributed 90% of the R&D and humans only pressed a button,
who should the patent really go to? 💸
📌 For AI-invented drugs, only humans can be registered as inventors.
Intellectual property law is being forced to evolve by technology; as more and more results are created by AI, “who owns AI’s output” will become the next trillion-dollar question—on-chain verification of rights and traceability may be the cleanest answer. 🤖💎
📲 Click the profile picture to watch the livestream! 🔥
Every day, first thing, I’ll help you understand【AI × Law, Intellectual Property, Tech Trends】in the simplest way—read the market, spot the next wave of opportunities! 🚀📈
Designing drugs with AI is already as fast as ChatGPT writing text 😱
The biotech company Insilico used an AI model
to design a new drug molecule
for treating pulmonary fibrosis
and even boldly announced: this is an “AI-discovered” 💊
But when applying for a patent,
all the inventors listed were humans:
CEO and four others—AI wasn’t mentioned at all 🤔
Why?
Because U.S. law requires inventors to be “individuals”—meaning humans.
Machines aren’t people, so they can’t be inventors ⚖️
In 2022, there was a well-known test case:
someone tried to list an AI (called DABUS) as the inventor
and the court rejected it outright, saying:
“Set aside the metaphysical debate—law recognizes only humans.”
But as AI involvement keeps increasing,
this rule is starting to be questioned 🤨
Even the U.S. Patent Office has acknowledged:
AI can “participate” in an invention like any other tool.
It’s just that it will never get its name on the credits ledger.
Now the whole industry is asking:
If AI contributed 90% of the R&D and humans only pressed a button,
who should the patent really go to? 💸
📌 For AI-invented drugs, only humans can be registered as inventors.
Intellectual property law is being forced to evolve by technology; as more and more results are created by AI, “who owns AI’s output” will become the next trillion-dollar question—on-chain verification of rights and traceability may be the cleanest answer. 🤖💎
📲 Click the profile picture to watch the livestream! 🔥
Every day, first thing, I’ll help you understand【AI × Law, Intellectual Property, Tech Trends】in the simplest way—read the market, spot the next wave of opportunities! 🚀📈