Artificial Intelligence (AI)means enabling machines and computers to imitate the learning, perception, decision-making, and problem-solving capabilities of a human being(
AI technologies are expected to be used in the discoveries of new drugs and a huge amount of investment is required to be successful in these efforts. Chematica in
The term "Machina sapiens"is used by futurologists to define the birth of a novel species, which will have thinking capacity(Marconi, 2020). AI facilitates the creation of new inventions by performing different functions including finding patterns, sorting data, and making predictions (Walch, 2020).
IP regimes have been under the influence of emerging trends in the innovation ecosystem such as technological diffusion, decentralization of knowledge, increased innovation costs, and shorter innovation cycles (Gassmann et al., 2021). AI technologies have raised existential questions regarding the fundamental tenets of the patent system including ownership, inventorship, and infringement. The increasing autonomous nature of the AI technologies and emergence of possible products, which are solely manufactured by the AI systems, has raised the question about the suitability of these systems for inventorship in the current IP regime, which relies on the "human inventor" to incentivize people for innovation.
The term "AI-generated" refers to the products that are generated by AI without any human intervention(Bosher, 2020). In today's technology, AI systems have not the capability to produce a piece of art or goods in a completely autonomous way. However, rapid technological developments in this field force the IP policymakers to introduce ideal regulations that enable the protection of IP rights without creating any side-effect such as a decline in the enthusiasm for new inventions.
The main purpose of the current patent system is to grant exclusive rights to natural persons for their inventions. Because these rights are believed to be beneficial to encourage people and entities to make investments to contribute to their societies. Another goal of the patent system is to record the specific details of the inventions for inspiring future generations to develop this knowledge-based heritage.
TheRembrandt project, in which AI technology was used to produce a painting based on the data acquired from the previous paintings of Rembrandt, clearly demonstrates the blurriness between technology and art (Baraniuk, 2016).
In the context of AI, the crucial question is that who should be the inventor in the patent application for AI-generated products? According to a school of thought, AI-generated products should fall within the category of public domain. The main problem with this approach is that lack of incentives would harm the motivation of the people to invest in the development of new inventions (Gürkaynak et al., 2017). In this regard, granting the patent rights for the AI-generated products to the creator of AI systems are believed to be crucial in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A similar approach is also adopted in the
On the other hand, the shortfall of vesting IP rights to the AI systems is related to the licensing and transferring of these rights to the other actors. Because the AI systems do not have capability to give decisions about these issues. Current legal systems do not recognize a non-human actor as a candidate for inventorship. In addition to that, although the number of AI-generated products has increased in recent years, it is evident that such products cannot come to exist without massive human endeavors in the creation of AI algorithms.
In the Dabus case in the
Apart from the inventorship dispute, there is another dispute about the liabilities in the IP infringement conducted by the AI systems. Lack of the mens rea element on the side of the inventor of the AI systems in those infringements will complicate the criminal proceedings(Bharucha&Partners, 2021).
Both legal experts and policymakers in
In conclusion, it seems that the inventorship dispute regarding AI-generated products will remain in flux for the foreseeable future. For now, each AI-related IP dispute will be investigated based on the unique material facts of them. Different nations and international organizations including the
References
BARANIUK, C. 2016. Computer paints 'new Rembrandt' after old works analysis [Online].
BHARUCHA&PARTNERS. 2021. Copyright in works created by artificial intelligence: issues and Perspectives [Online]. Lexology. Available: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4513277a-6571-40f1-923d-c09ec5366fdd [Accessed
BOSHER, H. 2020. WIPO Impact of Artificial Intelligence on IP Policy Response from.
GASSMANN, O., BADER, M. A. & THOMPSON, M. J. 2021. Patent Management Protecting Intellectual Property and Innovation,
GÜRKAYNAK, G., YiLMAZ, I., DOYGUN, T. & INCE, E. 2017. Questions of Intellectual Property in the Artificial Intelligence Realm [Online]. Elig Law Firm. Available: https://www.gurkaynak.av.tr/docs/8b791-rlj-september-october-2017-.pdf [Accessed
KIZRAK, M. A., BULUZ, B., ÖZPARLAK, B. O., ÜNSAL, B., GÜRZUMAR, D. D., ATALAR, G. D., ERIS, M. H., KÖKSAL, M. A., ÖZDEMIR, N., BASÇAVUSOGLU, O., GÖKSOY, R., ARSLAN, S. & ÇETIN, S. 2019. Yapay Zeka Çaginda Hukuk.
MARCONI, F. 2020. Newsmakers: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Journalism,
MEGGET, K. 2021. Patent applications listing AI as an inventor run into legal problems [Online]. ChemistryWorld. Available: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/patent-applications-listing-ai-as-an-inventor-run-into-legal-problems/4013138.article#/ [Accessed
MIKULAK-KLUCZNIK, B., GOLEBIOWSKA, P., BAYLY, A. A., POPIK, O., KLUCZNIK, T., SZYMKUC, S., GAJEWSKA, E. P., DITTWALD, P., STASZEWSKA-KRAJEWSKA, O., BEKER, W., BADOWSKI, T., SCHEIDT, K. A., MOLGA, K., MLYNARSKI, J., MRKSICH, M. & GRZYBOWSKI, B. A. 2020. Computational planning of the synthesis of complex natural products. Nature, 588.
OLIVI, G. & SPADAVECCHIA, S. 2020. The DABUS case: two patent applications designating an AI-based machine as the inventor refused by the EPO [Online]. Dentons. Available: https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2020/march/27/the-dabus-case [Accessed
SANDYS, A. 2020.
TÜRK_PATENT. 2018. AI, Industry 4.0 Patent Applications On Rise [Online]. Turk Patent. Available: https://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TURKPATENT/allNews/newsDetail?newsId=947 [Accessed
WALCH, K. 2020. How AI Is Finding Patterns And Anomalies In Your Data [Online]. Forbes. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2020/05/10/finding-patterns-and-anomalies-in-your-data/?sh=fb00bc5158e1 [Accessed
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr Faruk Yamankaradeniz
Destek Patent
Maslak Mah. Büyükdere Cad. No: 243
Kat: 13 Spine Tower Sariyer
Tel: 312295 6413
Fax: 212346 02 64
E-mail: simay.akbas@destekpatent.com.tr
URL: www.destekpatent.com.tr
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source