人工智能、发明家和发明机器的神话:一个过程可以成为发明家吗?

IF 1.8 Q1 LAW
Maria Lada
{"title":"人工智能、发明家和发明机器的神话:一个过程可以成为发明家吗?","authors":"Maria Lada","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2022.2154049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Institutional and academic debates have intensified regarding the recent efforts to claim inventorship of AI-related patent applications, as has notably been seen in the known cases of Thaler v Comptroller (‘DABUS’) that have been examined in various jurisdictions. The pertinent question that has emerged is whether artificial intelligence systems can independently produce patentable subject matter. What has to be looked at, first, is the preliminary question of what the claim of producing inventions ‘autonomously’ can possibly mean under a technological perspective – an essential stage in the debate that is usually bypassed in legal commentary. Once such a technological explanation has been provided, a legal question can reasonably arise as to whether an AI process, such as software, may make a contribution that rewards a patent. AI inventions are legally approached and analysed as processes and as to their relationship with their direct products. Thus, where a process (AI) ‘creates’ or ‘makes’ a product, the focus is reasonably put on if and to what extent disclosing the product can provide a contribution separate to that which has already been provided by the process that created it. It is stressed that the current push for AI-generated products bypasses this key question which is essential in assessing the invention.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence, inventorship and the myth of the inventing machine: Can a process be an inventor?\",\"authors\":\"Maria Lada\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13600834.2022.2154049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Institutional and academic debates have intensified regarding the recent efforts to claim inventorship of AI-related patent applications, as has notably been seen in the known cases of Thaler v Comptroller (‘DABUS’) that have been examined in various jurisdictions. The pertinent question that has emerged is whether artificial intelligence systems can independently produce patentable subject matter. What has to be looked at, first, is the preliminary question of what the claim of producing inventions ‘autonomously’ can possibly mean under a technological perspective – an essential stage in the debate that is usually bypassed in legal commentary. Once such a technological explanation has been provided, a legal question can reasonably arise as to whether an AI process, such as software, may make a contribution that rewards a patent. AI inventions are legally approached and analysed as processes and as to their relationship with their direct products. Thus, where a process (AI) ‘creates’ or ‘makes’ a product, the focus is reasonably put on if and to what extent disclosing the product can provide a contribution separate to that which has already been provided by the process that created it. It is stressed that the current push for AI-generated products bypasses this key question which is essential in assessing the invention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information & Communications Technology Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information & Communications Technology Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2154049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information & Communications Technology Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2154049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:关于人工智能相关专利申请的发明权,最近的机构和学术争论愈演愈烈,正如在各个司法管辖区审查的Thaler诉Comptroller(“ABUS”)的已知案件中所看到的那样。出现的相关问题是,人工智能系统是否能够独立产生可申请专利的主题。首先,必须考虑的是,从技术角度来看,“自主”生产发明的主张可能意味着什么这一初步问题——这是辩论中的一个重要阶段,通常在法律评论中被绕过。一旦提供了这样的技术解释,就会合理地产生一个法律问题,即人工智能过程(如软件)是否可以做出奖励专利的贡献。人工智能发明是作为过程及其与直接产品的关系进行法律处理和分析的。因此,当一个过程(AI)“创造”或“制造”一个产品时,重点是披露该产品是否以及在多大程度上可以提供与创造该产品的过程已经提供的贡献不同的贡献。需要强调的是,目前对人工智能生成产品的推动绕过了这一关键问题,这对评估发明至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence, inventorship and the myth of the inventing machine: Can a process be an inventor?
ABSTRACT Institutional and academic debates have intensified regarding the recent efforts to claim inventorship of AI-related patent applications, as has notably been seen in the known cases of Thaler v Comptroller (‘DABUS’) that have been examined in various jurisdictions. The pertinent question that has emerged is whether artificial intelligence systems can independently produce patentable subject matter. What has to be looked at, first, is the preliminary question of what the claim of producing inventions ‘autonomously’ can possibly mean under a technological perspective – an essential stage in the debate that is usually bypassed in legal commentary. Once such a technological explanation has been provided, a legal question can reasonably arise as to whether an AI process, such as software, may make a contribution that rewards a patent. AI inventions are legally approached and analysed as processes and as to their relationship with their direct products. Thus, where a process (AI) ‘creates’ or ‘makes’ a product, the focus is reasonably put on if and to what extent disclosing the product can provide a contribution separate to that which has already been provided by the process that created it. It is stressed that the current push for AI-generated products bypasses this key question which is essential in assessing the invention.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The last decade has seen the introduction of computers and information technology at many levels of human transaction. Information technology (IT) is now used for data collation, in daily commercial transactions like transfer of funds, conclusion of contract, and complex diagnostic purposes in fields such as law, medicine and transport. The use of IT has expanded rapidly with the introduction of multimedia and the Internet. Any new technology inevitably raises a number of questions ranging from the legal to the ethical and the social. Information & Communications Technology Law covers topics such as: the implications of IT for legal processes and legal decision-making and related ethical and social issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信