Strong AI to Super-intelligence: How is AI placed vis-à-vis Intellectual Property Rights

Raju Narayana Swamy

doi:10.34256/ijcci2121

Raju Narayana Swamy Principal Secretary, Government of Kerala, India.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Super-intelligence, Machine Learning, AI in India, IPR in India

Abstract

The paper analyses how Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled systems can be brought into the Intellectual Property (IP) ecosystem. It dwells upon the question of AI- IP interface from three perspectives, viz., (a) AI as a technology to manage IPRs, (b) IP rights as an obstacle to the transparency of AI and, (c) patents as well as copyrights as legal systems that can foster AI. The three-step test for obtaining a patent- novelty, inventive step and utility - is looked at through the lens of AI technology. Issues such as patent evergreening, best vs worst embodiment and liability for illegal acts which cannot be traced to human actors are delved into. The article concludes with the need for a uniform treatment of the AI system across the board by bringing in an amendment to TRIPS and the necessity to usher in regulators for adjudication.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Mccarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N. & Shannon, C.E. (2006). A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, AI Magazine, 27, 1-3.

Raquel Acosta, R., (2012), Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Rights, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 17

Kathuria, R., Kedia, M., & Kapilavai, S. (2020). Implications of AI on the Indian Economy, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.

Ireland, Imogen., & Lohr, Jason. (2020), DABUS’: the AI topic that patent lawyers should be monitoring, ManagingIP.

Indian Patent Act (1970), available at https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_31_1_patent-act-1970-11march2015.pdf .

Glaverbel SA vs Dave Rose and Others, 2010 (43) PTC 630, https://vlex.in/vid/ glaverbel-s-vs-dave-572132818.

Tripathi, S., Ghatak, C., (2018), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law, Christ University Law Journal, 7, 83-97. https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.12.5

Emerging Technology from the arXi, (2019), MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/09/20/132929/this-picasso-painting-had-never-been-seen-before-until-a-neural-network-painted-it/

Neill, Sean. O., (2014). How Creative Is Your Computer?, New Scientist.

Naruto Vs. Slater., (2018). United States Court of Appealsfor The Ninth Circuit, Jusita Us Law,

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, (1884). (III US 53 (1884) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/111/53/

Bleistein vs Donaldson Lithographing Company, (1903). 188 US 239 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/188/239/

Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. (1951). Catalda Fine Arts Inc., 191 F. 2d 99 (2d Cir, 1951) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/191/99/91570/

Palm G., (1986). Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts: A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity, Brain Theory, Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70911-1_14

Metaratings., (2017), SimSimi chatbot banned in Thailand, Telecom Asia, https://www.telecomasia.net/blog/content/simsimi-chatbot-banned-thailand/