Tekoäly keksijänä
Avainsanat:
immateriaalioikeus, teollisoikeus, patentit, keksinnöt, tekoälyAbstrakti
Artificial intelligence as inventor
Though the study of artificial intelligence penetrates all fields of science, law included, rarely has its impact been tested to such a degree as in patent law. A number of patent applications where an artificial intelligence system called DABUS was claimed to be the inventor have recently been rejected by the European Patent Office, the US Patent and Trademark Office, and the respective authorities in the UK and Germany, among others. In Australia, a court ordered the local patent authority to reinvestigate the application, though that decision has since been overruled. In the article, the author summarises the reasoning of the patent authorities and argues that, although the law in force requires the inventor of a patentable invention to be a human being, there is no inherent need for such a law. The author proposes that the inventorship in a patent is merely an identity label for the invention and suggests that recognising an AI system to have such a capacity does not mean acknowledging the system to have a legal, let alone a moral personality.
The author looks at the process of evaluating the inventive step necessary for the grant of a patent, in particular in the context of the European Patent Convention. The author identifies severe challenges ahead as AI systems evolve and questions whether the concept of inventive step can retain its relevance. The author also sketches alternative solutions for attaching intellectual property rights to inventions made by an AI system, as far as such rights are deemed necessary in the first place. The author concludes by looking at some alternative positions the regulator can take in terms of IPR in the light of the rapidly developing AI technology, fully admitting the risk of overstating the capacities of the said technology.
