Artificial intelligence violates patent law because the patent system assumes that inventors are human


In 2020, a machine learning algorithm helped researchers create a powerful antibiotic that works against many pathogens. Artificial intelligence is also used to assist in vaccine development, drug design, material discovery, aerospace technology, and ship design. In a few years, many innovations could use AI. This makes it one of the biggest threats facing patent systems. Patent law is based on the idea that inventors are human; He is currently having trouble dealing with an inventor who is a machine. Courts around the world are currently grappling with this issue, as patent applications have been filed in several countries naming an AI system as inventor. And many groups are currently conducting public consultations on AI and intellectual property law.

Artificial intelligence can be used to automate intellectual tasks through systematization, making it one of the most important technologies today. Nevertheless, the capabilities of AI have often been over-evaluated. In the case of intellectual property, for example, there has been controversy over how to protect innovations generated by AI, although AI cannot innovate without human intervention. At the same time, other discussions with more direct impact on the market have been sidelined. While you may already be exposed to the fear that robots are taking over your job, this is of course a marginal concern at the moment. Yet it is difficult to seriously reflect the technical unity that would make human labor and thought obsolete. However not all fields are ready for technological innovation and one of them is patent law.

Patent law is based on the idea that inventors are human; He is currently having trouble dealing with an inventor who is a machine. Courts around the world are currently wrestling with this issue, as patent applications have been filed in more than 100 countries naming an AI system as inventor. Several groups are currently conducting public consultations on AI and intellectual property laws, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. If the courts and the government decide that AI inventions cannot be patented, the effects could be huge. Funders and companies will have less incentive to bring in AI inventors to carry out useful research when their return on investment may be limited. Society may miss the development of useful and potentially life-saving innovations.

Machine-made inventions require their own intellectual property law and an international treaty

Instead of forcing old patent laws to adapt to new technologies, scientists Alexandra George and Toby Walsh have proposed that national governments design intellectual property laws that protect AI-generated inventions. Creating a tailor-made law and an international agreement will not be easy, but it would be worse not to make them. AI is changing the way science practices and innovates. We need a intellectual property law tailored to our needs, so that it works for the public good.

The problem that mechanical thinking creates in the traditional way of patent law is not just a small new feature: it touches the foundation of our concept of authorship and creativity. There is an innovative move when an innovation is not considered obvious to the skilled person in the industry. This fictional person has an average level of skill and general knowledge as a general expert in the relevant technical field. If a patent examiner concludes that the invention was not obvious to this speculative person, the invention is one step closer to obtaining a patent.

But if AIs become more knowledgeable and efficient than all the people in a field, it is difficult to see how a human patent examiner can evaluate whether the invention of an AI is obvious. An AI system designed to examine all published information about a field of technology prior to innovation will have far more knowledge than any human. Valuable as opposed to all knowledge, almost everything will seem empty. If, in the future, everyone had access to such AI tools, it would be virtually impossible to achieve the patent innovation measure and almost nothing would be patentable.

The Laplace monster phenomenon has long been a problem for decision makers trying to understand seemingly independent will and causation, but it has now emerged for patent attorneys who evaluate apparent creativity when a thoughtful object has a wealth of background knowledge. What would be the new metric to differentiate a stroke of talent from the mere cutting of a machine? While the dependent clich উপযুক্ত is appropriate here, there will probably be different tests for who or what made the innovation in different countries: this is a problem we should answer soon.

Source: Nature

And you?

What is your opinion about it? In your opinion, can AI hold a patent?
Can AI have intellectual property rights?

See also:

South Africa has issued the world’s first patent, citing the invention of an artificial intelligence: what are the benefits for companies in the sector? What danger?

The European Patent Office refuses to grant patents for ideas proposed by an AI, on the grounds that the inventor must be a human and not an algorithm.

Following its European counterpart, the U.S. Patent Office refused to provide the ideas proposed by an AI, on the pretext that the inventor must be human.

The UK Court of Appeals has ruled that an AI patent cannot be listed as an invention, assuming that the patent is a statutory right and can only be granted to someone.

Leave a Comment