Software: intellectual property and artificial intelligence

Author(s):  
Roger Burt ◽  
Colin Davies
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Swapnil Tripathi ◽  
Chandni Ghatak

Artificial intelligence systems have been gaining widespread momentum in today’s progressing tech-savvy world. With sophisticated technologies being incorporated in the same, it is only a matter of time these systems start to produce marvelous inventions without human intervention of any kind. This brings forth pertinent questions concerning Intellectual Property Rights, (IPR) for, it challenges not only traditional notions of concepts such as patents and copyrights, but also leads to the emergence of questions related to the regulation of such creations amidst others. This paper seeks to provide insight into the expanding scope of IPR laws and artificial intelligence, along with the inevitable challenges it brings from a worldwide lens on the matter. It also attempts to provide suggestions transcending IPR, and seeks to address questions concerning criminal liability for the content created by such technologies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (21) ◽  
pp. 240-247
Author(s):  
Ahmad Shamsul Abd Aziz ◽  
Nor Azlina Mohd Noor ◽  
Khadijah Mohamed

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID 19) was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. The rapidly spreading coronavirus outbreak around the world had forced the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare COVID 19 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Crisis management for COVID 19 requires an integrated and realistic approach, and a focus on technology can assist matters to become more efficient. Although IR 4.0 technology is widely used in dealing with pandemic crises, the relevant laws relating to intellectual property laws, especially copyrights and patents with this technology must continue to be protected. This article discusses IR 4.0 technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain as applied in the era of pandemics and intellectual property protection associated with this technology. For this purpose, this article applies library research methodology by analyzing primary and secondary sources. This article concludes that IR 4.0 technology such as artificial intelligence and blockchain is seen as jewels in the era of pandemics because as with the use of this technology, human communication can be reduced. In addition, this technology can also reduce dependence on manpower. Improvements to intellectual property laws can be done in providing more protection against this IR 4.0 technology.


2021 ◽  
pp. 132-141
Author(s):  
Svetlana Kodaneva ◽  

Artificial intelligence is becoming an indispensable assistant not only in solving technical problems, but also in various creative industries and even in creativity, which has always been considered a human prerogative. In April 2021 at the Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov was held an international scientific and practical conference, dedicated to the discussion of the key problems of legal regulation of various aspects of intellectual property both for human-created neural networks and for works (inventions) created by artificial intelligence. This review presents the problems and issues raised in the framework of this conference.


Author(s):  
Anke Moerland ◽  
Conrado Freitas

Artificial intelligence (AI) has an unparalleled potential for facilitating intellectual property (IP) administration processes, in particular in the context of examining trademark applications and assessing prior marks in opposition and infringement proceedings. Several stakeholders have developed AI-based algorithms that are claimed to enhance the productivity of trademark professionals by carrying out, without human input, (parts of) the legal tests required to register a trademark, oppose it, or claim an infringement thereof. The goal of this chapter is to assess the functionality of the AI tools currently used and to highlight the possible limitations of AI tools to carry out autonomously the legal tests enshrined in trademark law. In fact, many of these tests are rather subjective and highly depend on the facts of the case, such as an assessment of the distinctive character of a mark, whether the relevant public is likely to be confused or whether a third party has taken unfair advantage of a mark. The chapter uses doctrinal research methods and interview data with fourteen stakeholders in the field. It finds that AI tools are so far unable to reflect the nuances of the subjective legal tests in trademark law and, it is argued, even in the near future, AI tools are likely to carry out merely parts of the legal tests and present information that a human will have to assess, taking prior doctrine and the circumstances of the case into account.


Author(s):  
Jyh-An Lee ◽  
Reto M Hilty ◽  
Kung-Chung Liu

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP). While human beings have used various instruments and technologies to create and innovate, they themselves have been the main driving force of creativity and innovation. AI puts that into question, raising numerous challenges to the existing IP regime. Traditionally, the “intellectual” part of “intellectual property” refers to human intellect. However, since machines have become intelligent and are increasingly capable of making creative, innovative choices based on opaque algorithms, the “intellectual” in “intellectual property” turns out to be perplexing. Existing human-centric IP regimes based on promoting incentives and avoiding disincentives may no longer be relevant—or even positively detrimental—if AI comes into play. Moreover, AI has sparked new issues in IP law regarding legal subjects, scope, standards of protection, exceptions, and relationships between actors.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Colin Burrow

The introduction sets out the argument of the book. It suggests that the imitation of authors (imitatio) is not primarily a matter of verbal appropriation but of learning practices from earlier texts. That process is intrinsically hard to describe, and as a result discussions of the topic in the rhetorical tradition relied on a rich store of metaphors. These were themselves to become part of the practice of imitation. The introduction describes the various kinds of imitatio which developed from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries: ‘adaptive’ imitation, in which an earlier text is made ‘apt’ to new times, and ‘formal imitation’, in which an author imitates not the exact words, but the favoured rhetorical structures of an earlier writer. It explains how the word ‘model’ came to be used of an imitated text, and explores the relationship between imitation, plagiarism, and ideas about intellectual property. It explains how regarding an ‘author’ as a potentially open-ended series of texts distinguished by their style and form connects early modern theories of imitation with contemporary interests in artificial intelligence. It briefly suggests some implications of the subject for writing outside Europe, and explains how this book departs from earlier studies of the topic in its scope and argument.


Author(s):  
Eliza Mik

Cyclical advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are usually accompanied by theories advocating the granting of legal personhood to sophisticated, autonomous computers. This chapter criticizes such theories as incorrect—a possible result of legal scholars being seduced by incomprehensible technical terminology, sensationalistic stories in the popular press, and ‘creative’ photo filters that transform our faces into animals. Discussions as to when computers should be recognized as persons are, logically, outside of the scope of intellectual property law. The granting of legal personhood is not premised on the existence of consciousness, intelligence, or creativity. Recognizing an entity as a legal person is a normative choice dictated by commercial expediency, not the result of fulfilling any technical criteria. While it is necessary to acknowledge the blurring of borders between art and (computer) science, as well as the increase in the technological sophistication of the tools used by authors and inventors, it is also necessary to state that even an exponential increase in ‘computer creativity’ will not sever the link between the computer and its user. Before discarding the idea of legal personhood for ‘creative algorithms’ once and for all, the chapter explores the relationships between autonomy and creativity. In particular, it places technical terms such as ‘AI’ and ‘autonomy’ in their original context and criticizes uninformed attempts to imbue them with normative connotations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document