Does ‘A.I.’ Deserve Intellectual Property Rights - Legal Implications Under Patent And Copyright Law
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Intellectual Property
Published:
Updated:
DOES ‘A.I.’ DESERVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS UNDER PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAW
Asmita Singh1, Aditya Sahay2 & Mr. Sagar Kadyan3
ABSTRACT
Once thought to be a distant prospect, artificial intelligence has already made its way from literature and movies to our everyday lives, gaining popularity recently and leading to multiple innovations in almost every field. Every business will be wedged by artificial intelligence, and intellectual property rights (IPR) are no exception. The link between artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights (IPRs) is one of the primary areas of research in intellectual property law. After substantial but selective discussion, it looks to be becoming more practically important due to an outbreak of AI-related economic activity, a preliminary form of case law, and policy measures by politicians and international organizations. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will impact IPR in two ways.
On the one hand, it will seem valuable in areas like patents and patent search engines, accurate and germane research, and providing a way to separate concepts and discoveries. However, by giving the creator a mechanism on existing patents similar to his idea, among other things, AI may end up being a threat to innovation and growth, which are the actual core of IPR. With technological progress, we have advanced to a point where artificial intelligence (AI) is now thought to function similarly to the human brain, not merely to do little jobs. Now that this AI is capable of creating its own content, its ownership is called into question. This research paper will examine how digital technologies affect intellectual property rights (IPR), the benefits and drawbacks of artificial intelligence (AI) for IPR innovation and development, and the prospects for AI in IPR going forward.
Keywords: Innovations, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Intellectual Property Right
1 LL.M., Batch
(2024-2025), Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
2 LL.M., Batch
(2024-2025), Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
3 Asst. Professor, School of Law, Justice and Governance, Gautam Buddha University.
INTRODUCTION
"Artificial Intelligence (AI)" describes tasks that machines can perform without the assistance of humans. The phrase "computer" can be substituted with "machine. " Cognitive skills include natural language processing, sentimentality categorisation, face identification and detection, risk assessment, and scam detection. AI may be used by the sector to deliver real-time notifications for manufacturing operations and real-time data for supply chain monitoring.
Artificial intelligence is a technology that objects to comprehend the nature of human acumen through the labour of a computer program, and the capacity to pretend intelligent human behaviour, and it means the capacity of a computer program to resolve a problem, or make a conclusion in a circumstance, which means the database itself finds the method that should be trailed to solve the issue and to recognize the similarities between different situations and adapt to emerging conditions. 4 ‘John McCarthy’ identified Artificial Intelligence as "the science and engineering of producing machine intelligence" in 1955, he hypothesized that artificial intelligence triumphs would require five to five centuries. 5 He stood corrected.
These days, systems are able to produce an incredible amount of content, help in processing vast dimensions of digital data, as well as predict the consequence of legal proceedings. As the intellectual property (IP) market becomes more feasible, organizations that rely on IP portfolios have a tighter window than ever before to secure their practice and protection over the globe. A computer can handle, interpret, and analyse enormous volumes of raw data when it is given the chance to learn intellectually. Examples of unstructured information include documents, magazines, metadata, analogue data, such as information found in emails, audio recordings, media files, web pages, medical antiquities, and scientific credentials. This amorphous data encompasses the visual, auditory, and spoken facets of human communication. Machine learning uses these formats to find vast volumes of data.
AI-based teachers can offer students individualised instruction and guidance in the field of education. 4 Jamal bin Subaih Al-Hamlan Al-Sharari, “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Quality of Administrative Decision from the Point of View of Secondary School Leaders in Al-Jouf Educational Region” Volume 8, Part 1, Solouk Magazine, Ibn Badis University Mostaganem, Algeria, 2021, pp. 18-19. 5 Prof. A. Lakshminath & Dr. MukundSarda, “Digital Revolution and Artificial Intelligence- Challenges to Legal Education and Legal Research” CNLU LJ (2) (2011-2012).
Students' needs are satisfied in a customised environment. There are several applications of AI in the field of healthcare. Hospital administration, disease diagnosis, clinical results, patient monitoring, wellness system and therapeutic decision-making enhancement, care management enrichment, and facility proficiency are among the uses for it. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Given that AI technology is far more skilled of invention than humans, there is a good chance that there will be an overwhelming number of IPR claims. Future human creativity would suffer as a result of AI. If autonomous computers took the place of natural person inventions, human intellect would decline. This will lead to the elimination of high-tech research and design jobs and companies. A robust outline must be placed to guarantee that the patent filers are not abusing AI’s influence in the artistic process.
AI innovations could have unfavourable effects if they are not supervised by humans. It is imperative to take action to promote accountability and transparency. The regulations leading the patents, trademarks, and copyright must be modified in order to incorporate AI-directed developments, namely: data security, ethics, and protection. The patentability of AI technologies should likewise be included under the IP policy. Many people believe that AI can create. Collective inventorship is another factor to consider. Does AI could share an apprenticeship with a human? Furthermore, who has responsibility in the event of an IPR infringement? RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What are the legal and policy barriers to integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into
artistic creations? 2. What possible changes and amendments to the law would be required to allow AIgenerated works under the existing intellectual property (IP) laws?
3. How can cooperative models of credit and ownership be developed to acknowledge the
roles played by AI systems and human creators in AI-generated content?
OBJECTIVES
1. To examine the policy and legal issues elevated using artificial intelligence in creative
works.
2. To recommend possible legal modifications and amendments that would allow artificial
intelligence-generated content to be incorporated into the current intellectual property laws.
3. To investigate cooperative attribution and ownership models that recognises the roles
played by both AI systems and human creators in AI-generated work.
4. To offer suggestions to stakeholders, lawmakers, and policymakers for negotiating the
constantly changing domain of AI-generated content and advancing a sustainable and equitable approach to AI and intellectual property.
5. Study the global perspectives on AI and intellectual property, including ownership and
authorship and the legal status of AI-generated content.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
This research includes an interdisciplinary approach is being used to study the patentability of AI. Old archives, journals, official government sources, conferences, law commission reports, law reporters, reference materials, scientific credentials in books, e-journals, magazines, online documentaries, television shows, debates in the parliament, and more are all included in the research. Mutually primary and secondary data were used for the study. RELATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AND AI The most noteworthy market where AI could have a momentous impact is the intellectual property (IP) segment. Concerns about IP protection should be on the minds of those enforcing the rights connected with intellectual property, given the obvious demonstration of the extraordinary level of creativity and intelligence displayed by AI.
This necessitates moving on to the more thoughtful end of the copyright discussion on AI solutions and the relationship between patent rules and AI systems.
A preliminary report on civil law rules pertaining to robotics submitted by the European Parliament to the Commission asserts that AI will eventually affect all societal strata and appeals that the Commission progress standards for what constitutes a "personal intellectual creation" for copyrightable works produced by AI. These days, there exist computers that automatically produce works that, if created by a human, would be protected by copyright. Numerous high levels of computational creativity up to this point, which has spurred discussions worldwide about re-examining copyright regulations for artificial intelligence. One crucial area where technology has already reduced the need for human interaction is document identification and appraisal, which has previously served as a fruitful testing ground for AI technologies.
In legal firms, patent offices, and occasionally even legal tribunals, administrative tasks are among the most time-consuming, challenging, and hazardous. Historically, these tasks have been driven by paperwork, time-consuming searches, or intricate decision-making processes where a single input error could jeopardise enormous sums of money. Numerous high-level computational creative advances have been made up to this point, which has led to discussions worldwide about re-examining copyright regulations for artificial intelligence. A macaque monkey who took viral selfies was recently denied copyright by a San Francisco court. Now that animal copyrights are not an issue, AI is facing a similar dilemma. Various copyright offices all over the world have lately said that they will not record works created by machineries.
In the same manner, patent law may raise questions about who owns innovative inventions created by AI computers. Who will be the owner of patents on new inventions submitted by AI robots without any human involvement? Will future inventions belong to the machine or robot? Who will have the authority to enforce proprietorship rights when they are alienated midst additional entities? And how will reimbursements be calculated if an AI replicates an invention or plagiarises a work? These are some fundamental yet perplexing issues that patent laws now deal with. Given the exponential rise of AI in all market sectors, it is the responsibility of intellectual property theorists and legislators to create rules that can be enacted in the world with AI. Position in India There are numerous laws pertaining to intellectual property could have an effect on how AI operates in India.
These laws are covered in more depth below.
I.
Copyright According to Indian Copyright Law, a "work" must first satisfy the "modicum of creativity" requirement outlined in Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak.6 However, based on a reading of the standard established in the aforementioned ruling, no firm conclusion has been reached that would indicate an AI is unable to exhibit the necessary "modicum of creativity." In addition to the aforementioned, an AI must also meet the second condition for ownership of copyrighted works, which is to be considered an "author" as defined by the Copyright Act of
1957. Given that artificial intelligence is typically thought to lack legal personality, this would
be problematic. As given under Section 2(d) of The Copyright Act, 1957: Section 2. (d) “author” means,— (vi) in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created;7 The use of the phrase "the person who causes the work to be created" is the first problem with the definition given above. The nearness of a natural or legal person to the formation of the "expression" in question is a key factor in determining who "causes" a work to be created. The more directly or closely a person contributes to the creation of the "expression," the more likely they are to be considered a person "who causes the work to be created.
" In view of the aforementioned, the Copyright Act of 1957's current legal structure might not be able to adequately address or regulate the creation of works in which the true author of the "expression" is neither a human nor a lawful person. Accordingly, authorship of AI-generated works would be controversial under Indian copyright regulations. II.
Patent According to Section 6 of the Patents Act of 1970, only the genuine and original creator of an invention or the individuals designated by them upon request may submit an application for a patent. However, the concept of a "true and first inventor" is limited by Section 2(y) of the Act to the exclusion of the first person to import an invention into India or to whom it is first
6 Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak (2008)1 SCC 1.
7 The Copyright Act, 1957, ss. 2(d).
conveyed outside of India, and nothing more. The need that an inventor be a natural person is not specifically imposed by these regulations. Accordingly, an AI might be considered an inventor under Section 2(y) of the Patents Act, 1970, based on a cursory interpretation of these provisions. However, it is always thought that the "true and first inventor" is a normal person. The law on this topic will therefore be important to follow, particularly the position is booked by the patent regulatory institutions in cases where the "true and first inventor" listed on the patent application form is not a ‘natural person’. AI in near future, will undoubtedly have a significant impact on how patent law develops. To broaden the scope of the invention, sophisticated usage of natural language processing has been implemented to generate variations of current patent claims.
By forming the corpus of prior art that is in the public domain, the disclosure of these patent claims employing such technology would assist prevent patenting concepts that are readily apparent and derived. A patent's enforceability will become significantly more dubious if the use of such services becomes more common in the business since there is a greater chance that previous art may be overlooked, rendering the invention invalid. Consequently, it is possible that artificial intelligence (AI) may be created to help with prior art discovery, which would raise demand for AI in this industry from a patent law standpoint. 8 AI-GENERATED CONTENT AND THE RESULTING IMPLICATIONS FOR COPYRIGHT There are several copyright issues when artificial intelligence is used to create works.
The following are some important considerations about artificial intelligence-generated works and their consequences for copyright: The person who created the work is typically acknowledged as the author under standard copyright laws. In the case of artificial intelligence-generated works, the problem of authorship becomes complex. A question arises about authorship attribution between the human operator and the AI system. Different legal countries may approach this issue in different ways. For copyright protection to be effective, a work must be unique. Even though AI-generated works might display creativity as well as uniqueness, there exist continuous debate about how
8 Intellectual Property Office (India), Office Order No. 36(2017), available at
http://www. ipindia. nic. in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Office_Order_No_36_of_2017_for_Revised__Guidel ines_for_Examination_of_CRIs. pdf (last visited on November 29, 2024). the human contribution in the creative process distresses the innovation principle of such works. It is debatable to what degree an AI system can create original works on its own; some contend that human intervention is necessary for a work to be considered original. One of the most important concerns is the ownership of copyright in works produced by artificial intelligence. Ownership may be claimed by the person or entity that owns the AI system. In some cases, if a work is created as part of an employment arrangement, the human operator or employer may be considered the owner of the work under copyright law.
Databases or AI-generated works that incorporate data compilation may be eligible for protection under database rights, which are different from copyright protection in some legal systems. The aforementioned rights are intended to protect the significant financial outlay required for the purchase, verification, and display of a database's contents. The ideas of fair use and infringement may become problematic when third parties exploit AIgenerated works. A number of factors, including the location and purpose of the use, must be taken into consideration when determining whether the use of such items complies with fair use guidelines or violates them. 9 OWNERSHIP AND CREDITING OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED WORKS In many jurisdictions, copyright law usually governs the idea of ownership with regard to creative works.
Ownership rights are often granted by this legal framework to human writers who have produced said works with a certain degree of ability, perception, and originality. AIgenerated creations typically created without direct any human participation, identifying whom possesses the rights to such work is a hurdle. It is because the human production is a precondition for copyright protection, works generated by any artificial intelligence are not observed as qualified. Therefore, it can be assumed that the person or organisation in charge of owning and running the AI system would be considered the owner of the creations made by the AI. The process of acknowledging the primary author or creator of a specific work is known as 9 Andres Guadamuz, “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright” (Artificial intelligence and copyright), (Oct. 2017), https://www. wipo.
int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003. html. attribution. Since human authorship is absent from AI-generated works, the question of attribution emerges. Pre-existing works or datasets can be used to train or develop artificial intelligence (AI) systems. They do not, however, possess the natural inventiveness and purposefulness that distinguish human writers. As such, it might not be appropriate to attribute authorship of AI-generated works solely to the AI system. It is interesting to note that laws and rules concerning artificial intelligence-generated works vary from one jurisdiction to another. Several countries have initiated to explore legislative contexts to address these issues, such as giving rights or protections to AI systems or bearing in mind involving human operators in the initial stages of development.
However, the development of comprehensive and widely accepted rules for the ownership and attribution of artificial intelligence-generated works is still ongoing. PATENTABILITY IN RELATION TO ADVANCEMENTS AND CREATIONS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE The same fundamental rules that apply to other kinds of discoveries and inventions also govern the assessment of patentability in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Certain unique characteristics and the rapid advancement of AI technology may have an impact on the patentability of inventions linked to AI. The following are crucial elements to take into account: An AI invention must correspond to the statutory subject matter specified by the applicable patent legislation in order to be eligible for patent protection.
An innovation must be related to a new and useful process, device, product, or material under many legal systems, including the US. Potential examples in the field of artificial intelligence could include novel algorithms, software applications, hardware configurations, or unique uses of AI technology. One essential requirement for achieving patentability is the existence of novelty. In Gopal Glass Works Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents, it was decided that in order for an creation to be patented, it had to be novel and unique. 10 An AI innovation must satisfy the novelty requirement, which calls for being unique and not previously revealed or made available to the public before the patent application is submitted, in order to be eligible for patent protection. Any previous publications or patents relating to AI technology may have an impact on its
10 Gopal Glass Works Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents (2007) 1 Cal LT 290 HC.
innovation and possible patentability. Non-obviousness or an inventive step are also required. According to the aforementioned remark, the AI breakthrough should not be a blatant modification or synthesis of current technology or processes. The demonstration should demonstrate a level of creativity and innovation that goes beyond what is generally accepted as general knowledge or a normal level of expertise in the field of artificial intelligence. This idea was originated by the four tests of obviousness were ingeminated in Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries. 11 An essential prerequisite for an AI invention is its industrial applicability, which calls for the idea's capacity to be applied or implemented in an industry or field.
The invention must have a clear and specific use in the field of artificial intelligence and go beyond simple conceptualisation or theoretical construction. It was held in Cipla Ltd. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. 12 Artificial intelligence requires patent applications to provide adequate disclosure and enablement so that a competent person in the field can duplicate and implement the invention without experiencing undue experimentation. The innovation should be clearly, thoroughly, and effectively explained in the patent application so that someone with the necessary knowledge can understand and implement the invention. Determining whether an AI invention can be patented has become more difficult as the use of AI grows, creating a legal conundrum with regard to patent laws.
System operation was initially straightforward when early computers were solely used for calculations, but it has since grown more complex, particularly with the creation of ChatGPT. This paper will study the situation of AI inventions in relation to the Indian Patent Act of 1970. 13 The Act lists numerous items that don’t fit the criteria of an invention, as stated in Section 3(k) that “a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms” cannot be considered as an invention. 14 In addition to denying patentability based on the Act, the courts have so far determined that the
11 Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, AIR 1982 SC 1444.
12 Cipla Ltd. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2015) 40 PTC 125 (Del).
13 The Indian Patent Act, 1970.
14 Id., s. 3(k).
content produced lacks the inventiveness necessary to pass the patentability test or the four standards of obviousness. Furthermore, as most AI systems are made to accomplish preexisting goals, the requirement of novelty poses questions because there have been cases where AI produced responses based on pre-existing models or notions. This strict criterion is being relaxed, though, as AI innovations have real-world applications across a range of industries, meeting the requirements for industrial applicability. Since there is now no clear picture regarding the issuance of patents for AI technologies, particularly ChatGPT-generated replies, more revisions may be made when the matter has been thoroughly examined. Conditions required to obtain patents are not the end of the argument; issues of penalties and patent infringement often arise. Penalties are covered in Sections 118–124.
These include violations of the secrecy provisions pertaining to specific inventions,15 falsification of entries in the register, etc. ,16 unauthorised patent rights claims,17 improper use of the term "patent office,"18 refusal or failure to provide information,19 practices by unregistered patent agents,20 and offences committed by companies. 21 In the event that the rights are violated, the patentee (the person who has a patent for an invention) is granted a remedy, which may include an injunction, damages, an accounting of profit, the seizure of infringing items, or forfeiture. 22 Regarding patent infringement, Novartis v. Union of India23 is a landmark ruling. In addition, there are several acts in section 107A that are not regarded as violations.
24 Since intellectual property rights include patents, the article will first address the idea of intellectual property and related rights before examining how AI inventions are handled in various jurisdictions. PATENTABILITY STATUS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Other jurisdictions treat AI inventions differently when it comes to patentability.
15 Id., s. 118.
16 Id., s. 119.
17 Id., s. 120.
18 Id., s. 121.
19 Id., s. 122.
20 Id., s. 123.
21 Id., s. 124.
22 Id., s. 108.
23 Novartis Ag v. Union of India (2013) Civil App No. 2706/2716.
24 Supra note 11, s. 107A.
U. S. : As per the United States' Consolidated Patent Laws, “the term “inventor” means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. 25” It means that only persons who have produced or discovered an invention are regarded innovators, and even the slightest possibility of someone other than a human being involved is not considered. However, in recent years, artificial intelligence has become more involved in the invention process, so legal review should be required. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a ‘Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance’ in 2019 for applying a two-part eligibility test that was establish in a historic Alice case26 ruling under Section 101 of the Patent Laws, which addresses the subject matter's eligibility.
27 JAPAN: As one of the technologically most advanced nations, Japan provides robust patent protection. The definition of invention under Japanese patent law is “the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the laws of nature. 28” Software is only eligible for patent protection if every step of the innovation is connected to hardware, such as a computer or processor. 29 In comparison to other jurisdictions, the scope of the ‘subject matter’ pertaining to the patent of a "computer program or algorithm" is similarly more expansive. Computer inventions fall into four categories according to the Japanese Patent Office's (JPO) Examination Guidelines: method, computer-readable storage medium, information and computer program equal to a computer program.
Either natural persons or legal entities, like a corporation, may inherit the rights of an inventor, who must be a natural person. 30 E. U. : Patentable inventions are mentioned in the European Patent Convention. As long as the inventions satisfy the TRIPS Agreement's conditions, they can be granted in any technological field. Additionally, it discusses things that aren't considered inventions, like “discoveries, scientific theories, and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
25 Consolidated Patent Laws 2005, s. 100(f).
26 Alice Corp. v. CIS Bank International, 573 US 208 (2014).
27 “Patent Eligibility and Alice... Not Who, But What?” (Ference) (Feb. 09, 2023), available at.
https://ferencelaw.com/patent-eligibility-alice/.
28 Japanese Patent Law 1959, art. 2(1).
29 ‘What can be patented in Japan? - A simple introduction on requirements for patentability’ (Sept. 28 2020).
30 Masato Iida & Shinya Jitsuhiro, “Japan
Patents Comparative Guide” (Mar. 8, 2022), available at. https://www. mondaq. com/intellectual-property/989178/patents-comparative-guide. presentations of information. 31” The European Patents Office's interpretation of article 52(2)32 was criticised by the European Economic and Social Committee (ESC). by characterising it as "the product of legal casuistry," since the word "invention" has a negative definition. The idea of "whole contents theory" was introduced following numerous Board rulings, however, the ESC contested this approach and it was rejected due to a lack of sufficient justification.
AI-PRODUCED CONTENT IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS This issue was acknowledged by the US Copyright Office's Registrar of Copyrights as early as 1965: The key question that arises here is if the "work" is essentially the product of human writing, with help of the computer serving only as an auxiliary tool, or whether the work's main writing components such as literary, artistic, or musical expression or aspects of selection, planning, etc. were conceived and carried out by a machine rather than a human. 33 For instance, the UK's Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988, positions that the author of a computer-generated piece of literature, theatre, music, or art is considered to be the one who made the required preparations for its creation. 34 The stance taken by US law, however, is very different.
The prevailing legal view in the US maintains that authorship is a distinctively human activity that cannot be imitated by intelligent machines, a view that has been established by years of jurisprudence on "authorship" in instances involving computer-generated works. Regarding invention patentability, a same stance is upheld. The term "inventor" is defined as "the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. 35" Furthermore, who conceptualised the invention is the threshold question in determining inventorship, according to the US Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A person is not an inventor unless he or she helped come up with the idea for the invention.
36 There are obstacles to considering computers as potential inventors because of the US Code's explicit reference to the "individual" and the MPEP's reference to the "person" as innovators. Computers may nevertheless fall short of contributing to conception even when they play a
31 European Patent Convention 1973, art. 52(2).
32 Ibid.
33 The Library of Congress, Report of the Register of Copyrights for the Fiscal Year Ending (June 30, 1965) (sixtyeighth report) https : //copyright.gov/reports/annual/archive/ar-1965.pdf last visited on 17 November 2024.
34 Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 9(3).
35 35 United States Code, s. 100(f).
36 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2137, s. 2 (USA).
more significant role in the creative process, such as automatically processing data, retrieving knowledge that has been stored, or identifying patterns in data. 37 According to the definition given in Townsend v. Smith,38 "conception" is the creativity in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the full and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice and the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive art. Because robots lack humanity, the "mental part" and "formation in the inventor's mind" cannot be applied to them. THE CASE STUDY OF DABUS Since no AI had ever been tried to be designated as an inventor to get patent rights, the DABUS application was a turning point in the history of patent law. Dr.
Stephen Thaler is the proprietor of DABUS, or Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, and as a result, DABUS has given Thaler the authority to issue patents. 39 This presumptive argument has led to a dilemma of whether an AI has the right to a patent, much less the ability to transfer it. This is the first patent office in the world to grant a patent with artificial intelligence as the inventor. Dr. Thaler's application was submitted to several patent offices around the world, together with the USPTO, the European Patent Office, the South African IP office, the Australian Patent Office, as well as UK IP office. All of these offices forbidden it. 40 The UK court's decision to deny an AI a patent may not have been the right one.
The court exclusively focused on the phrase "inventor" and its association with the term "person," which is assumed to be a human being, after carefully examining the definition of "person" to determine what it means. DABUS has no right to possess a patent since it is unquestionably neither a natural person nor a legal person. Furthermore, the court did not take a comprehensive approach to the situation, which left open the possibility of future lawsuits involving AI technologies. Therefore, it might be argued that the limited understanding and the failure to discourse the issue that could determine 37 Ryan Abbot, “I Think, Therefore I Invent : Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law” 57 Boston College Law Review 1079 (2016).
38 36 F2d 292, 295 (CCPA 1929).
39 Stephen L Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Mark, (2020) EWHC 2412 (Pat). 40 Sanjana, “A Brief Overview of the DABUS Patent Case” (Global Patent Filing), (Oct. 23, 2021) available at. https://www. globalpatentfiling. com/blog/brief-overview-dabus-patent-case#: ̃ : text=DABUS%20case%3A%20Brief%20facts%20Device%20for%20the%20Autonomous,computational%20in vention%20that%20was%20created%20back%20in%202018-19. the jurisprudence to administer AI related inventions worldwide represent a lost opportunity. 41 Regarding South Africa's patent issuance, it is important to remember that the nation lacks a substantive patent eligibility requirement and, as a result, did not go through the lengthy formalities of reviewing the application. 42 Furthermore, its laws do not define an inventor.
SUGGESTIONS What precisely constitutes a computer-generated work, who is the original owner of the rights to such a work, and how the standard of "own intellectual creation" can be applied to computergenerated works are among the questions that require clarification in legal study and practice. Humans have always used invention to make life better. New ideas are essential to social advancement and economic expansion, as demonstrated by the invention of fire, electricity, the Internet, and more. Innovation is fundamentally a human endeavour at its best. It is evident from examining the conceptual foundations of intellectual property law that conventional ideas function differently when applied to works created by artificial intelligence (AI) than when applied to works created by human writers and inventors. For a very solid reason, the system has only granted rights to humans.
It is illogical to grant intellectual property rights to computers as they do not require incentives to produce. Economic factors are not what motivate a computer that has been designed to carry out specific tasks, even if those tasks are accomplished by machine learning techniques. Furthermore, a machine cannot be said to have a "personality" that requires creative outlets if personhood is absent. For similar reasons, even if the robots themselves do not have intellectual property ownership, their creations and innovations can nonetheless support communal planning. Therefore, there is no legal foundation for extending intellectual property ownership for AI-generated works to robots and AI.
There is a grey area between infringement and ownership when machine learning techniques are used as the main method for AI to produce unique works. Proponents of intellectual property rights for AI make claims about the latter, but they fail to acknowledge the very real risk of intellectual property infringement that arises when intelligent robots access and "learn" 41 Saransh Chaturvedi, “The Curious Case of Dabus : Who should own the AI-Related inventions?”, SCC Online, (Dec. 26, 2020) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/12/26/the-curious-case-of-dabus-who-should-ownthe-ai-related-inventions/.
42 Ibid.
from vast amounts of previously created works. The claims of uniqueness for the works produced by AI are called into question by the strong dependence on access to works produced by others. Comparing the creative processes of humans and machines raises deeper issues of originality and infringement. Machines produce copyrightable works and patentable ideas as a result of programming and automated methods of "learning" from preexisting creations, whereas humans do so naturally as a result of their creative impulses. To appropriately address these issues It is suggested that the authors of copyrighted works that are utilised as training examples by robots should also own a portion of the intellectual property that the robots produce in the end. A creative platform that functions as a marketplace for original works is suggested in order to achieve this.
For a set price, authors can post their creations and works on this site for creative robots to view. These would function as innovative data repositories, but the data's creators would also benefit from receiving just remuneration for granting access. In addition to having specific regulatory provisions for functioning as a cross-jurisdiction platform, this creative platform could have structural distinctions between literary, musical, and artistic works. In the event that the jurisdictions are geographically or legally distant, the fees that authors must pay would be higher. For instance, an illustrator in Toronto may submit her work for digital access by a robot in Beijing and get paid more than she would if she submitted it for access by a creative robot in her own nation.
By promoting AI-creativity and broadening the stakeholder base, such a creative platform would accomplish two goals: it would guarantee a democratised creative-AI sector. By paying authors their fair share of royalties, it would also reinforce already-existing intellectual property. Since the current statute views the person who "makes the necessary arrangements" for the creation of these works as an author, providing enough ambiguity, expanding the stakeholder net needs to go farther. Because programmers, operators, servers, data-owners (writers of previously published works), and data-providers can all be claimed to "make necessary arrangements," it is difficult to pinpoint the precise authorship and its scope.
In order to achieve this, it is suggested that current laws be amended to include human involvement at different technical levels in both the creation of creative AI and the creation of works by it. Specific definitions of "programmer," "developer," "operator," "server," "data-author," "data-provider," and other terms must be added to statutes. In order for the aforementioned parties to determine the amount of their respective ownership through a contract, the statutes must also be changed to allow for contractual agreements including the sharing of intellectual property rights.
CONCLUSION
To a certain degree, current legislation acknowledges the distinction between human authorship and machine production, considering individuals who make "necessary arrangements" to be the authors of these works. As courts start handling their first cases involving these laws, it is anticipated that the jurisprudence around "authorship" and "generation" will grow stronger over time. Although the scope of the "authorship" requirement has been adequately explained by American intellectual property jurisprudence, more recent laws in nations like the UK are anticipated to address more recent issues regarding the degree of human involvement at various levels of machine-generated works, the justification for human authorship of machinegenerated works, and other related topics.
The development of creative robots has sparked existential discussions concerning the rights of machines and the future of human creativity, as well as important problems concerning the philosophical foundations of the creative process. The philosophical and legal underpinnings of our current rights system offer long-lasting remedies, notwithstanding the temptation to make catastrophic predictions about humanity's future in the face of inventive and potent robots. With the advent of creative robots, the idea that innovation and creativity are exclusive to human authors and inventors can now be disproved, but as of yet, no AI technology can be considered to genuinely "innovate" or "create" in the sense that science, society, and the law understand and recognise.
Governments and legislators must recognise the importance of current technological legislation and foster an informed public conversation about the new intellectual property issues in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as human technological advancement is rapidly surpassing the legal framework that supports it. Since establishing novelty and creative processes depend on the availability of previous art, Chat GPT's current status is problematic since, despite its industrial usefulness, it does not provide specific answers. Establishing the need for an inventive step becomes even more difficult because Chat GPT's algorithm, which was trained using supervised and reinforcement learning techniques, uses publicly available information to create written articulation that is human-like using artificial intelligence.
The DABUS case is a prime example of this, as the comparison of several jurisdictions reveals that the majority of them concentrated on rules that have not changed in recent years and are now out of date. Given the growing importance of AI inventions, modifications are desperately needed right now. Developing a unified legal framework that acknowledges Al-generated inventions or provides some clarification on their status could be a positive step.