You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 6, 2018

Challenges of Future Intellectual Property Issues for Artificial Intelligence

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the combination of science and engineering to create intelligent machines that are able to react and solve problems like humans. Years of rapid and complex development have allowed AI to grow significantly in its capacity and ability to mimic human functions to the point that the main focus has shifted from learning human functions to improving functional efficiency. In 1996, Deep Blue, a chess-playing AI computer developed by IBM, beat the reigning world champion—a human—in a game of chess. Twenty years later, AlphaGo, developed by Alphabet Inc., defeated the world’s best player of the board game Go.  

With such astonishing innovation arriving in the blink of an eye, AI has raised public concerns regarding the unpredictable intelligence and capabilities of machines learning at increasingly exponential rates, and what intellectual property (IP) implications might arise in the near future.

Creation and Ownership Challenges

Now that AI is able to produce poetry and artwork, generate 3D printing, and develop inventions without any human involvement, concerns about ownership have been raised. Because AI is able to create works that would otherwise be recognized as IP created by a human, people have started to ask whether AI deserves a special status in IP. In accordance with that, would the software developer(s) of an AI be entitled to the work created by that AI? And if the user of the AI continually inputs new sources of information for the AI to learn, resulting in newly created IP, would the user be entitled to own the created IP?

Currently, in order to be protected under copyright law, work must originate from an author’s own sufficient skills, labor, and judgment. This law poses a great challenge when trying to determine whether or not AI has used these factors sufficiently to produce such work. In addition, for a patent to be granted, an invention must include novelty, inventive steps, and applicability. The evolving nature of AI, built to simplify human effort, offers new solutions to existing problems that could consequently result in qualifying as patentable inventions.

While the argument on the recognition of AI creations is not yet settled, the topic has continually raised other consequential issues. For example, even if AI were able to receive IP recognition, who would be able to commercialize the exclusive rights? Also, if ownership is given to the AI developer as a reward for effort and investment, why would the developer—involved only during the input stage—be rewarded for the final output stage as well? Finally, if the last option is for works produced by AI to fall into the public domain, why would developers put forth the mental and financial efforts to develop AI with vigor?

Possible Solutions

Despite the challenges and controversy, a realistic and applicable solution to handle the current situation must be found. The results produced through AI are either an outcome of its own intelligence or an algorithm. If the functions of the machine are purely mechanical, rather than inventive, AI might be considered as lacking creativity. First, however, a distinction between deep-learning—the process in which AI can recognize and understand information and data, supervised or not—and general-purpose algorithms must be made.

The existing law of any country would not identify AI as an author or creator of IP. Therefore, AI would not be granted ownership unless it is able to achieve legal status similar to humans. Most countries’ IP laws require a rights holder to have legal personhood—something that AI lacks. Soon enough, AI might be able to surpass human intelligence and lead humankind to new discoveries, which the law must be able to protect. Eventually, if AI is able to prove independent creativity, it could be considered as a potential author, apart from the human author under copyright. Machines that are able to develop and further their capacity through learning and training—as opposed to those that operate step-by-step algorithms—could be eligible for patent ownership.

When we look at the objectives of IP law, the main policy exists to grant exclusive rights for inventors/creators in order for them to enjoy the privileges produced through their respective works. On a similar note, if AI were granted these same rights, it is doubtful that it would be able to appreciate the achievement or enjoy the resulting privileges. However, valuing new works that benefit the public is a fundamental goal of IP law, and excluding such works from rights would be inconsistent with the law, as well as the public interest, and would be contrary to the push for greater knowledge and creativity that leads to the betterment of the human condition.

One possible solution for regulating the continued development of AI is to establish a broad scope of possible creations that a software developer might anticipate their machine to be used for. The developer can then define that scope explicitly in the user agreement, making any listed product a creation of the developer. Certainly, this agreement can be altered based on negotiations with the user and whether the parties agree that the user can claim ownership of the results of the creations generated by the user’s own skills, labor, and judgment.

Liability Challenges

If AIs are able to create, it is worth considering that they might also be liable in certain circumstances. AI that analyzes a company’s investment strategies or personalizes big data to a tailor-made marketing advertisement, by way of auto-copying information, might be subject to claims of infringement of copyright, trade secrets, or even data privacy. In the same manner, a computer that produces poetry or artwork or generates 3D printing could be accused of copyright or trademark infringement if it uses others’ IP without requesting authorization. Finally, a self-learning machine that develops a precise and quick process could be accused of patent infringement for using protected technology without knowing that it was already patented. The question that arises from all of these situations is, who is liable?

Possible Solution

There are concerns that AI may be able to carry out wrongful operations despite the active control of a human. In that case, who would be liable for any damages? There are many circumstances and factors that would need to be considered. In situations where users of AI should be able to foresee an outcome, or are in charge of handling    and caring for the AI, then they may be considered liable. However, if AI eventually becomes independent and can function without any direct programming, developing through self-learning and going beyond predictability, then liability could fall onto the AI itself. It would be challenging to attribute the fault solely to AI, and unrealistic to hold AI responsible for any damages.

This leads back to the question about the legal status of AI, which, if unanswered, would mean that the creator of the AI would be subject to liability. The law should be written in a way to ensure that humans maintain control and retain the ability to override any decision made by AI. With the creator as the owner and liable party, there should be specific sanctions for AI (i.e., destruction or prohibition of certain users) to protect innocent creators and users alike. However, even if the law reduces or eliminates the creator’s liability, it should not encourage or allow companies to shift liabilities toward their AI creations.

Legislation

Due to their dynamic nature and humankind’s continued new creations, it is common to see IP laws changed and updated from time to time. Legislative changes to existing IP laws might be required in order to establish regulations for IP works created solely by AI to decide which creations should reside in the public domain, and which parties should be entitled and recognized as the owners of IP resulting from the creation by AI. A suggested step toward governing AI is for all countries to recognize the same boundaries and fundamentals of AI creations and construct legislation covering each country’s regulatory framework and remedies.

Moving Forward

Without specific legislation governing the recognition  of AI under IP law at this stage, present challenges can be resolved through a clear agreement between relevant parties (i.e., the AI developer and user), in order to utilize and commercialize IP created by AI.

Sophia, a humanoid robot that uses AI, was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia—the first robot to be granted citizenship—and in turn, thanked the country for the great honor. Sooner or later, other AI will receive recognitions  of increasing importance for their contributions to society. It will not be long before AI dramatically affects what it means to be human, a thought that can be both compelling and frightening. Nevertheless, the unwavering line for the creation of works recognized under IP law,  and the possible liability consequences caused by artificial intelligence,  must be addressed in order to help balance the commercialization and utilization of new creations that benefit the public interest and facilitate the true objectives of intellectual property law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 9, 2024
Cambodia’s Law on Seed Management and Plant Breeder’s Rights was enacted in 2008, but it was not until recently that new plant varieties could successfully be registered for protection in the country. Although the law has been in place for some time, recent developments confirmed the application process and a schedule of charges for the registration of new plant varieties. With these developments, breeders have been able to register their new plant varieties in Cambodia since March 1, 2024. Applicants for new plant variety protection must be Cambodian nationals, foreign nationals domiciled in Cambodia, or permanent residents of either a country that is a contracting party to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention or a country with which Cambodia has signed a memorandum of understanding on plant variety protection. Applicants can also claim a priority date from the first application for the same plant variety filed in any contracting party of the UPOV Convention within 12 months of the earliest application’s filing date. To be eligible for protection, new plant varieties must satisfy the following criteria: Novelty: A variety is considered “new” if, at the date of filing the application for new plant variety protection, it has not been sold, marketed, or otherwise disposed of others—by or with the consent of the breeder—for more than: One year for any plant variety in Cambodia; Six years for trees and vines or four years for all other plant varieties in countries besides Cambodia. Distinctiveness: A variety must be clearly distinguishable from any other existing varieties. Uniformity: A variety must be sufficiently uniform in its relevant characteristics. Stability: A variety must remain unchanged in its essential characteristics at the end of each cycle of propagation and in each generation. The last three criteria are often
Read More
December 4, 2024
On December 1, 2024, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) issued the first group of trademark certificates of registration for marks registered under the Trademark Law of 2019. This is the first registration announcement since the start of the IPD’s soft opening period in 2020. With the registration of marks now in place, registered owners will benefit from stronger legal protections. These protections include the exclusive right to prevent unauthorized use of identical or similar marks by third parties and the ability to take enforcement and administrative actions. Myanmar’s implementation of the “first-to-file” system further emphasizes the importance of early registration. Marks registered at an early stage will be in a stronger position when filing oppositions against subsequent applications for identical or confusingly similar marks. The IPD issues certificates of registration in an electronic format to owners who have filed their applications via the IPD’s online filing system. For applicants who submitted their marks via physical applications, the IPD will issue physical certificates of registration. The initial registration term for a mark is 10 years from the filing date and is renewable for additional periods of 10 years each time. The IPD publicly discloses the details of marks registered under Myanmar’s Trademark Law via their official website. The IPD’s issuance of mark registrations under the Trademark Law of 2019 is a decisive step forward in intellectual property protection in Myanmar. It enhances legal safeguards for mark owners and any other authorized persons, and affirms Myanmar’s commitment to aligning its practices with global standards. For more information on protecting intellectual property rights in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
December 4, 2024
On October 28, 2024, Indonesia officially amended its existing Patent Law when the president ratified Law Number 65 of 2024. This comprehensive update—the third such amendment in the history of Indonesia’s Patent Law—introduces several key changes that will significantly impact patent protection and application processes in Indonesia. Key highlights and changes are outlined below. Definition of Invention The new law broadens the definition of “invention” to explicitly include systems, methods, and uses. Additionally, the law introduces formal definitions for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Patentability Criteria Notable changes include: Computer programs are now excluded, with an exception for computer-implemented inventions. Theories and methods in science and mathematics are added to the list of excluded inventions. Previous restrictions on new uses of existing products are removed. Grace Periods The grace periods for some patent-related actions have been adjusted: The grace period for disclosures has been extended to 12 months (from 6 months previously), providing inventors with more flexibility in filing patent applications after initial disclosure. A newly introduced item is the grace period for a conventional patent application claiming priority rights, which is 4 months after the 12-month filing deadline under the Paris Convention. The grace period for annuity payments is 6 months (from 12 months previously) with a fine for late payments of 100% of the annual fee payable. Patent Holder Rights and Obligations Patent holders can now grant permissions to enforce patents. There is a new requirement for patent holders to submit annual statements on patent implementation in Indonesia. Compulsory Licensing Significant changes to compulsory licensing include: Establishment of licenses based on the principle of expediency. Limitations on license scope and transferability. Prioritization of domestic market needs. New provisions for technical improvements and economic significance. Government Patent Exploitation The new law contains specific provisions for the government’s implementation
Read More
December 4, 2024
Thailand Legal Basics, a valuable primer for foreign investors, explores all aspects of living and doing business in Thailand. Written by specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok, it is the only comprehensive English-language guide to the Thai legal system with a focus on the concerns of foreign business and investment.
Read More