Comments on: Does Patent Law Fail in the AI regime?

By: Brian L.

Brian L. — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:38:36 +0000

This post reminded me of the work-for-hire doctrine of copyright law. In most cases, intellectual property produced by employees while they are on the job or utilizing resources from their company belongs to the firm. Similarly, if a robot were “employed” by a company and devised a new innovation, it seems logical that the company would be able to claim patents and other intellectual property produced by the robot. Absolute artificial intelligence probably will not be seen for a long time, and most robots act according to human parameters. If a robot were programmed to try mixing thousands of combination of chemicals, for instance, to create a new drug, why shouldn’t the drug company be able to patent a successful drug that results?

The broader idea of companies exploiting machinery is nothing new. During the industrial revolution, Marx was highly critical of the fact that machinery-what he called fossilized labor–was used to both displace human labor and cause the ruling class to profit from the past work of the proletariat for years to come.

By: Carolyn N

Carolyn N — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:55:03 +0000

A human may have created the parameters for the machine, but in the scenario James refers to, the human does not manually input all possible actions available for the machine. The fact that the machine has the capability to create new ideas/new patterns within the parameters that its creator gave it makes this very troubling. It seems almost human-like. If I were theologically-inclined, I might put a plug for the fact that all humans are limited, inherently, by certain parameters/code/abilities. Yet, it hasn’t stopped us from doing many interesting things within our limits and being somewhat creative (arguable, I know).

Frankly, all of this sounds a lot like playing god.

By: Evin M

Evin M — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:24:17 +0000

I think the process by which the intelligent machine is created can be claimed as IP, but not necessarily that which the intelligent machine creates.

Assuming original AI, however, is a huge hurdle that we might not want to take for granted so easily (even for the sake of the subsequent IP discussion). A machine is limited to the functions which are coded into it…it comes down to a series of 1s and 0s compiled by a human. Everything that the machine does, it does BECAUSE deliberate human actions have been taken to make it capable of doing so. Basically, the actions of a machine are intrinsically unoriginal (despite what strong AI supporters might say). This might make the discussion of AI’s IPRs (or lack thereof) a moot point…

By: Michael L

Michael L — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:28:00 +0000

This raises another question–if we have intellectual property that is capable of having ideas, who owns that intellectual property? What if a patented AI machine comes up with an invention, can it patent it? And if so, does the owner of the patent on the AI machine own the AI’s patent on the invention? Weird things start to happen when you can claim ownership of a thinknig being….

By: Tyce W

Tyce W — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:31:03 +0000

This is a great question to raise, and I think intuitively at least the idea of “owning” an intelligent machine is extremely problematic. On a more structured note, Kant insisted that the basis of ethical rights was rationality and self-consciousness, not any particular biological structure. So under a Kantian ethical/legal framework at least, a truly intelligent and “aware” machine would be entitled to all the rights that we are accustomed to – including the right not to be enslaved.