Should AI innovation be patented?

Should an artificial intelligence (AI) be recognized as the creator of innovation? That’s right- this is Alexandra George, an intellectual property expert at the University of New South Wales in Australia, and Toby Walsh, a professor at AI. In an article published May 24 NatureThey explain their position.

AIs are already here

The authors start from different observations. The first one ” Courts around the world are currently grappling with this issue, as patent applications have been filed in more than 100 countries to name an AI system as inventor. They further note that AIs are involved in drug development, vaccines, material discovery, aerospace technology or ship design.

In the same category

AI: The United States warns of the risks associated with discrimination in recruitment

Stefan Thaler, a kind of AI rights activist, has been waging a legal guerrilla war for several years to get his algorithms recognized as the father of their invention. Its an AI, DABUS (Unified Sentence Autonomous Bootstrapping Device) has created a container and a flashing light. Another, creativity is a work source in the machine industry.

Authorities in charge of patent registration have rejected the requests for recognition in the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union (EU), South Korea, and Australia.

According to these two experts on AI and intellectual protection, the government must review patent standards. These are based on two texts drafted prior to the introduction of the algorithms, the 1883 Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property and the 1994 World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Treaty. .

For researchers, these aging lessons are poorly adapted to the existence of AI for two reasons. First, they believe that if the courts refuse to recognize the creation of AI, the companies they own will be less motivated to develop it and therefore harm innovation.

Second, the recognition of the “inventive step” before obtaining a patent requires that the innovation is not obvious to a skilled person in the field. AIs are stuck with knowledge of an area where they will work, it is impossible to determine whether the innovation is obvious.

This is a possible solution to the intellectual property problem

To remedy these difficulties, Alexandra George and Toby Walsh proposed work in three stages to obtain appropriate legislation. First, a consultation of stakeholders, similar to the initiatives of the EU and the World Intellectual Property Organization, which are dependent on the United Nations. They think it’s a ” Good start, which should emulate all patent systems of the judiciary

As the law itself, they consider that ” Tankering with existing legal protections, we take the risk of leaving the gray area “Rather, it advises the implementation of new laws covering the main categories of intellectual property: copyright, industrial design, trademarks and patents.”

The last logical step is an international treaty to accommodate these new laws, equipped with an international arbitration tribunal in the image of a future unified patent court in Europe.

Researchers acknowledge that these texts will not ” Not easy To bring out, but they judge that ” Not making them would be bad “For them” AI is changing the way science practices and innovates. We need an intellectual property law that suits our needs, so that it works for the welfare of the people.

Leave a Comment