Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Abstrakty
Not only do advanced artificially intelligent (AI) systems play an increasingly important role in modern society, but they also significantly enhance industrial and economic development. AI systems are already capable of generating outputs, which, had they been created by humans, would be eligible for patent protection. Polish patent regime has yet to determine how it will address inventive computational results. This paper aims at addressing a question whether AI-generated outputs can be considered patentable inventions under Polish legal framework and if so, who would be recognized as the inventor. The author draws conclusions de lege lata and briefly outlines de lege ferenda observations. The author argues that vesting the inventor status in one of the persons who contributed to the AI-generated result offers a reasonable incentive to actors involved in the innovation process and, at the same time, leaving aside vexed problem of computational personhood, does not undermine established legal paradigms, in particular the traditional notion of human creator (inventor).(original abstract)
Rocznik
Tom
Numer
Strony
17--35
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
autor
- Uniwersytet Wrocławski
Bibliografia
- Abbott R., 'Everything is Obvious' (2019) 66 UCLA Law Review
- Abbott R., 'I Think, therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law' (2016) 57 Boston College Law Review
- Abbott R., 'Patenting the Output of Autonomously Inventive Machines' (2017) 10 No. 1 Landslide
- Bottalico B., 'Cognitive Neuroscience, Decision Making and the Law' (2011) 2 European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Bridy A., 'Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author' (2012) Stanford Technology Law Review
- Bringsjord S., 'Chess is Too Easy' (1998) 101/2 Technology Review
- Buyers J., Artificial Intelligence. The Practical Legal Issues (Law Brief Publishing 2018).
- Clifford R. D., 'Intellectual Property in the Era of the Creative Computer Program: Will the True Creator Please Stand Up?' (1997) 71 Tulane Law Review
- Coase R. H., 'The Nature of the Firm' (1937) 4 Economica
- Cohen A. M., 'Stephen Thaler's Imagination Machines' (July-August 2009) 43(4) The Futurist 28 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299169623_Stephen_Thaler's_Imagination_Machines> accessed 10 September 2019.
- Cope D., Computer Models of Musical Creativity (MIT Press 2005)
- David Levy, Robots Unlimited: Life in a Virtual Age (CRC Press 2005)
- de Cock Buning M., 'Autonomous Intelligent Systems as Creative Agents under the EU Framework for Intellectual Property' (2016) 7 European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Denicola R. C., 'Ex Machina: Copyright Protection for Computer-Generated Works' (2016) 69 Rutgers University Law Review
- Dorotheou E., 'Reap the Benefits and Avoid the Legal Uncertainty: Who Owns the Creations of Artificial Intelligence?' (2015) 21(4) Computer and Telecommunications Law Review
- Drahos P., A Philosophy of Intellectual Property Rights (Routledge 1996)
- du Vall M. 'Podmioty i prawa podmiotowe' in Elżbieta. Traple (ed), Prawo Patentowe (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer Polska 2017)
- Feldman R. C., 'Artificial Intelligence' (2018) 21 Green Bag 2d
- Fisher W., 'Theories of Intellectual Property' in S. Munzer (ed), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge University Press 2001)
- Flint D., 'Intelligence: The Artificial Way' (2020) 41 Business Law Review
- Franzoni L. A., Kaushik A. K., 'The Optimal Scope of Trade Secrets Law' (2016) 45 International Review of Law and Economics
- Grounds for the EPO decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 163
- Grounds for the EPO decision of 27 January 2020 on EP 18 275 174
- Kassan P., 'AI Gone Awry: The Futile Quest for Artificial Intelligence' (2006) 12 Skeptic Kohlhepp P. M., 'When the Invention is an Inventor: Revitalizing Patentable Subject Matter to Exclude Unpredictable Processes' (2008) 93 Minnesota Law Review
- Kohlhepp P. M., 'When the Invention is an Inventor: Revitalizing Patentable Subject Matter to Exclude Unpredictable Processes' (2008) 93 Minnesota Law Review
- Kostański P., 'Tytuł I. Przepisy ogólne. Art. 3' in P. Kostański (ed), Prawo własności przemysłowej. Komentarz (2 nd edn, CH Beck 2014)
- Markiewicz R., 'Sztuczna inteligencja i własność intelektualna' in A. Adamczak (ed), 100 lat ochrony własności przemysłowej w Polsce. Księga jubileuszowa Urzędu Patentowego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Wolters Kluwer 2018)
- Markiewicz R., Ochrona prac naukowych (Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1990)
- Newell A., 'Response: The Models Are Broken, The Models Are Broken!' (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review
- Preussner-Zamorska J., 'Autorstwo projektu wynalazczego' in S. Grzybowski, A. Kopff (eds), Prawo Wynalazcze. Zagadnienia Wybrane (Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1978)
- Preussner-Zamorska J., 'Prawo do autorstwa wynalazku' (1974) 2 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
- Promińska U., 'Zagadnienia podmiotowe' in E. Nowińska, K. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska (eds), System Prawa Handlowego, T. 3, Prawo własności przemysłowej (CH Beck 2015)
- Samuelson P., 'Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works' (1986) 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review
- Schank R. and Owens Ch., 'The Mechanics of Creativity' in R. Kurzweil (ed), The Age of Intelligent Machines (MIT Press 1990)
- Scherer M. U., 'Regulating Artificial Intelligent Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies' (2016) 29 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
- Schuster W. M., 'Artificial Intelligence and Patent Ownership' (2018) 75 Washington and Lee Law Review
- Sołtysiński S., Prawo Wynalazcze. Komentarz (Instytut Wydawniczy Centralnej Rady Związków Zawodowych 1975)
- Staszków M., Prawo wynalazcze (Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1989)
- Stierle M., Artificial Intelligence Designated as Inventor - An Analysis of the Recent EPO Case Law (2020) 69(9) GRUR International
- Szajkowski A., Wynalazki wspólne. Aspekty prawne (Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich 1982)
- Szczepanowska-Kozłowska K., 'Zagadnienia Podmiotowe' in E. Nowińska, U. Promińska, K. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska (eds), Własność przemysłowa i jej ochrona (Lexis Nexis 2014)
- Szczotka J., 'Tytuł I. Przepisy ogólne. Art. 3' in T. Demendecki and others (eds), Prawo własności przemysłowej. Komentarz (Wolters Kluwer Polska 2015)
- Szczotka J., 'Tytuł I. Przepisy ogólne. Art. 8' in T. Demendecki and others (eds), Prawo własności przemysłowej. Komentarz (Wolters Kluwer Polska 2015)
- Szwaja J. and Kubiak-Cyrul A., 'Twórcy projektów wynalazczych' in R. Skubisz (ed), System Prawa Prywatnego, T. 14A, Prawo własności przemysłowej (CH Beck 2017)
- UK IPO patent decision BL O/741/19 of 4 December 2019, <https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/741/19> accessed 1 October 2020
- USPTO decision of 22 April 2020 on Application No. 16/524,350, <https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/16524350_22apr2020.pdf> accessed 1 October 2020
- Vertinsky L. and Rice T. M., 'Thinking about Thinking Machines: Implications of Machine Inventors for Patent Law' (2002) 8 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law
- W. M. Landes and R. A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Belknap Press 2003)
- WIPO, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence (WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1 REV.) 21 May 2020 <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_ai_2_ge_20/wipo_ip_ai_2_ge_20_1_rev.pdf> accessed 1 October 2020.
- Yanisky-Ravid S. and Liu X. (Jackie), 'When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: An Alternative Model for Patent Law at the 3A Era' (2018) 39 Cardozo Law Review
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171631872