Can computers and AI become inventors?

Professor of Law from the University of Surrey believes that it is necessary from a formal point of view to equate computer AI to the inventor on an equal basis with people for participating in the creation of any invention. This view is expressed in an article published in the journal Boston College Law Review, entitled “I Think, Consequently, I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law” [I Think, Therefore, Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law].

In the introductory part of the article it is stated that although patents for inventions made by computers had previously been granted, the concept of computer invention was not considered in the courts. The idea of ​​recognizing inventions at creative computers may sound surrealistic, but in fact they have, without any recognition, issued inventions that can in principle be patented for decades.

Problem of law

As Professor Ryan Abbott [Ryan Abbott] points out in his work, "Autonomous machines have been producing fundamentally patentable results for at least twenty years, and the rate of appearance of such inventions is likely to increase." The increase in their number makes it even more important to solve the problem of ownership of rights, and uncertainty can prevent the publication of such inventions in the future and lead to disputes. One of the famous examples of the creative use of computers is the Creative Machine, a computational paradigm invented by an informatics expert, Stephen Thaler [Stephen Thaler], in 1994.
')
This machine is able to create new information structures and adapt to various developments of events without human intervention. Among the results of her work can be noted the invention of the main concept of the Oral-B CrossAction toothbrush. Other examples of computer creativity include a system that models biological evolution, known as genetic programming, and the Watson system from IBM. IBM describes it as a machine capable of creating "ideas previously unseen by the world." Watson uses algorithms to create new ideas based on predefined parameters. Its latest version is capable of creating potentially patentable recipes based on user preferences and the predicted quality of the dish. Accepting the fact that AI systems are really capable of inventing something new will be the first step towards a solution to the problem of copyright. Until now, it is believed that the person who discovered the solution invented by such a system should be indicated in the patent as an inventor. But is this the correct approach, will it not have a detrimental effect on inventions that will later emerge from this important area of ​​scientific research?

Lack of clarity

According to current patent laws, patent applications must include the names of one or more inventors, specifically, “persons” or “individuals”, and not communities. To be an inventor, an individual had to come up with a part of the invention. Apparently, AI systems, such as The Creativity Machine, are able to work on this without human intervention. And this uncertainty about who should be considered the inventor of the concept invented by AI raises interesting questions about ownership of a patent for an invention.

People-inventors are considered to be the owners of the patent, unless they have transferred this right to another owner, or do not work in a position demanding to transfer these rights to the employer. But if an AI system can be called an inventor, who has the rights to its invention? From the point of view of patent law, it is easy to see that the current lack of clarity on this issue can lead to disputes.

Suppose that an individual A creates an AI system capable of independently generating new ideas, and grants a license for its use to the company B. The AI ​​generates drawings of the new device that the very first individual B finds at the office of the company B. He understands that the new device will revolutionary. In this case, who should be considered the inventor: AI or individual B? Moreover, who retains the rights to inventions - from the creator of AI, individual A, company B, or individual C?

Does the license between individual A and company B guarantee the transfer of rights from individual A to company B, or does the right remain with individual A? If we consider the inventor of an individual B, who works for company B in a position that does not imply the creation of inventions, then individual C can claim to be the author of this invention. And if individual B is in the company as an intern without a contract, then observing his drawing can be equated to publication, which would prevent the design of the patent.

A major impact on the economy

If the uncertainty about the ideas invented by AI will persist, this may lead to the strangulation of this area. The inability to claim the rights to the invention and correctly patent it in many cases will make it impossible to commercially use them, attract private investment in their development, or transfer them under license to a third party. As stated in the article, without clear ownership rights, ideas created by AI may not see the light at all out of fear that someone else will be able to use them.

Instead of sharing inventions with the world through the patent system, they will be hidden in anticipation of clarity in this matter. In order for society to benefit from the stream of innovations that is gaining momentum in the field of informatics, problems with ownership of rights must be resolved as soon as possible. In this regard, the article by Professor Abbott can be considered timely and raising an important issue that has a serious impact on the economy.

So far, the idea of ​​recognizing computer AI as an inventor may seem like an uninitiated fad, but in the near future some kind of breakthrough invention may well appear. It would be very sad if the advantages that it could give would have been lost due to patent disputes.