A Study on the Intellectual Property Challenges of AI-Based Algorithms in International Law
Keywords:
Intellectual Property; Algorithm; Law; Artificial intelligenceAbstract
The contribution of this paper is that it seeks to answer several legal challenges facing the intellectual property rights of products in which artificial intelligence plays a minimal or maximal role in their creation. First, if artificial intelligence can improve the underlying algorithm of the program with methods (such as machine learning methods, which will be discussed later) or if the programmer with the help of artificial intelligence can improve the underlying algorithm of the program, can artificial intelligence be granted a patent and does it include the rights of inventors? What challenges will not taking into account the role of artificial intelligence in the case of a role in the invention create? Then, it is examined whether the underlying algorithm of the program can be protected in the laws of developed countries according to copyright laws and what legal solutions, if possible, have been proposed in international law for this challenge so far? Results showed that supervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement algorithms can be covered by copyright protection in legal systems if human creativity is observed in their algorithms and their choices completely change the model.
References
Abbott, R. (2016). I think, therefore I invent: creative computers and the future of patent law. BCL Rev., 57, 1079. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2727884
Abbott, R. (2019). The artificial inventor project. WIPO Magazine, 3-4.
Abbott, R., Matulionyte, R., & Nolan, P. (2021). A brief analysis of DABUS, Artificial Intelligence, and the future of patent law. Intellectual Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand(125), 10-16.
Biagioli, M. (2006). Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 73(4), 1129-1172. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2006.0001
Bonadio, E., & McDonagh, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence as producer and consumer of copyright works: evaluating the consequences of algorithmic creativity. Intellectual Property Quarterly(2), 112-137.
Comer, A. C. (2020). AI: Artificial Inventor or the Real Deal? NCJL & Tech., 22, 447.
Conditions for a patent. https://www.prv.se/en/patents/applying-for-a-patent/before-the-application/conditions-for-a-patent
Dadia, T. (2021). Can AI Find Its Place within the Broad Ambit of Copyright Law? Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law, 10, 45-52.
Feng, X. Q., & Pan, B. H. (2021). The evolution of patent system: Invention created by artificial intelligence. Procedia Computer Science, 183, 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.02.055
Fhima, I. (2020). The CJEU decision in Brompton Bicycle (Case C-833/18): An original take on technical functionality? European Intellectual Property Review, 42(11), 761-767.
Fink Hedrick, S. (2019). I 'Think', Therefore I Create: Claiming Copyright in the Outputs of Algorithms. Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, 8(2), 327-330.
Gebru, A. (2018). Patents, disclosure, and biopiracy. Denv. L. Rev., 96, 535. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3188311
Henry, C., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Intellectual property, dissemination of innovation and sustainable development. Global Policy, 1(3), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00048.x
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2021/ai-invention-denied-patent-in-dabus-case. https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2021/ai-invention-denied-patent-in-dabus-case
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808
Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Geo. LJ, 77, 287.
Joyce, C., Ochoa, T. T., Carroll, M. W., Leaffer, M. A., & Jaszi, P. (2016). Copyright law. Carolina Academic Press.
Khoury, A. (2016). Intellectual property rights for hubots: On the legal implications of human-like robots as innovators and creators. Cardozo arts & ent. LJ, 35, 635.
Kim, D. (2020). 'AI-Generated Inventions': Time to Get the Record Straight? GRUR International, 69(5), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa061
Klobucnik, L. (2024). Intellectual Property Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: A Matter of Time or a Step Too Far? In Developments in Intellectual Property Strategy: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and New Technologies (pp. 91-112). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42576-9_4
Oriakhogba, D. O. (2021). Dabus gains territory in South Africa and Australia: Revisiting the AI-inventorship question. South African Intellectual Property Law Journal, 9(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.47348/SAIPL/v9/a5
Pearlman, R. (2017). Recognizing artificial intelligence (AI) as authors and investors under US intellectual property law. Rich. JL & Tech., 24, i.
Peter, K. Y. (2017). The objectives and principles of the TRIPS agreement. In The Regulation of Services and Intellectual Property (pp. 255-322). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315085463-7
Pollack, M. (2001). What Is Congress Supposed to Promote: Defining Progress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, or Introducing the Progress Clause. Neb. L. Rev., 80, 754. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.304180
Rene, F. G. I. L. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the concept of inventor in the patent system. 6.
Savale, S. K., & Savale, V. K. (2016). Intellectual property rights (IPR). World J Pharm Pharm Sci, 5(6), 2529-2559.
Schwein, R. L. (2020). Patentability and Inventorship of AI-Generated Inventions. Washburn LJ, 60, 561.
Solbrekk, K. F. (2021). Three routes to protecting AI systems and their algorithms under IP law: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(3), 250-252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab033
Stierle, M. (2021). A de lege ferenda perspective on artificial intelligence systems designated as inventors in the European Patent System. GRUR International, 70(2), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa186
Sun, H. (2022). Artificial Intelligence Inventions. Fla. St. UL Rev., 50, 61. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4485665
Tan, T. J. (2024). Artificial intelligence as inventor? SAcLJ, 36, 346.
Taylor, E. J., & Inman, M. (2017). Looking at patent law: why are patents often referred to as intellectual property? The Electrochemical Society Interface, 26(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.F02171if
Taylor, K. (2021). The patentability of inventions with artificial intelligence listed as an inventor following Thaler v. Hirshfeld. IPCLJ, 6(1).
Triaille, J. P., Dusollier, S., Depreeuw, S., Hubin, J. B., Coppens, F., & de Francquen, A. (2013). Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society (the "InfoSoc directive").
Van Eechoud, M., & van Es, R. (2023). Report on EU Policy Space in Light of International Framework.
Zipper, T. (2021). Mind over Matter: Addressing Challenges of Computer-Generated Works under Copyright Law. Wake Forest J. Bus. & Intell. Prop. L., 22, 129.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Sina Vakili
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
