Legal Aspects of AI and IPR

Ms.Saloni Tyagi (Law Dept.)

INTRODUCTION

The term “artificial intelligence” originally was published in 1956 at Dartmouth College, which is where its history may be found.

The intelligence generated by “machines” is essentially what artificial intelligence (AI) refers to. For a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding, we may state that artificial intelligence refers to any intelligence that is in contrast to the natural flow of intelligence exhibited by “animals and living creatures.”

The term “intellectual property” (IP) refers to any genuine innovation of human intelligence, including works of art, literature, technology, and science. These are mostly the intangible qualities that were present in the creator’s original vision and were subsequently transformed into concrete (present in reality) qualities.

Contrarily, intellectual property rights (IPR) correspond to the legal privileges given to the inventor or founder to secure his creation for a predetermined amount of time. IPR in India is still in its early stages and is very young.

There are numerous examples of how human inventions and robotics have developed from human intellect today. These inventions and robotics are constantly working to create new things and evolve new ideas from their algorithms that are useful for day-to-day life and these things are constantly improving our quality of life. Discussions over determining the specific legal body that owns the rights to such developments have come to a standstill.

AI AND IPR

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are a crucial instrument for preserving and encouraging human ingenuity. In terms of regulations like copyright and patent laws, artificial intelligence has emerged as a relatively recent topic of discussion. Discussions on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) ’s correlation on the distinction between real human consciousness and artificial consciousness (AI). Determining who is responsible for such technologies’ failures is one of the major problems. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) participates in discussions on a regular basis and actively seeks ways to eliminate such issues.

When artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the invention process, the present intellectual property (IP) regulations are insufficient to solve problems with inventor identity and other infractions. The issues facing policymakers are considerable, and this issue has been the subject of ongoing discussion among legislators and professionals.

Significance of Intellectual Property Laws for AI

Developing cutting-edge AI frameworks calls for a lot of supposition. Therefore, there is a dire need to reform IP-related rules that can safeguard AI innovation developments and compensate trend-setters through copyright or patent awards. However, licenses and copyrights are typically granted to producers or artisans based on their ability to meet criteria like uniqueness, innovation, unobtrusiveness, creative advance, and so forth. The need in this case is that there be no mention of non-human progress in the current legal definitions of imagination and advancement.

In this way, the question of who is to blame for developments in spite of everything remains unresolved. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 (the CDPA) defines the author of a work as the person who creates it. Though the IPRs can be granted to the human or creator operating these machines for advancements or innovative works by machines with weak AI, for instance, if a developer is directly in charge of each produce. The UK CDPA also stipulates that in cases where a work is generated by a computer and no human author is identified, the person who attempts the necessary game plans for the work’s production shall be considered the creator.

This configuration leaves no room for the AI to be seen as the creator, hence a human creator must be located someplace. However, for robots with strong AI, determining who owns the intellectual property rights to the content these computers produce is undoubtedly rather perplexing; particularly when it comes to granting or approving such rights.

As of right now, AI frameworks are not regarded as beings with feelings, and no specific legislation specifies who will own the intellectual property rights to everything they create. Consequently, there is room for growth in this area of law.

To enable an AI framework to be involved in creating the necessary substance, the present IP law structure should be seen from a different perspective. Over the coming years, the legal questions connected to possession will surely get more complex and unavoidable as AI continues to segregate itself from human actions.

Artificial Intelligence and Judiciary

Virtual Hearing: As a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, there has been a sharp increase in the use of technology for electronic filing and virtual hearings.

Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software, or SUVAS It is an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can help in the translation of verdicts into local languages.

This is another important initiative to improve access to Justice.

Supreme Court Portal for Court Efficiency (SUPACE): It was just introduced by the Indian Supreme Court.

By encapsulating judicial operations that can be automated by AI, it helps the Court increase efficiency and decrease pending cases. It is designed to first understand judicial processes that need automation.

Conclusion

There is little question that AI will advance steadily with each passing day. Self-driving vehicles, robots, and completely automated machinery are already being employed in many economies throughout the world, and this trend is only anticipated to continue as time goes on.

As a result, it is anticipated that entities and people will become proportionately more dependent on AI systems. It is crucial that the authorities take a reasonable and impartial stance while handling the issue of artificial intelligence. It would be a step in the right direction if all participants in multilateral economic forums started to acknowledge AIs in the same way, maybe by a Trips amendment. The AI now executes tasks in each circle that humans can.

To prevent this, a law governing AIs needs to be drafted. It should include guidance and clarity regarding the obligations and rights of those who create AI frameworks, and it should outline the broad moral standards that these individuals must adhere to when creating AI and applying autonomy frameworks. Due to the lack of a legal statute addressing this issue, it is anticipated that legal and cost requirements will soon be established, which will not only drive the advancement of AI but also ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place.

References-

[1] Rockwell Anyoha, The History of Artificial Intelligence, SCIENCE IN THE NEWS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY (Aug. 28, 2017), https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/history-artificial-intelligence/

[2] Tyler Sonnemaker, No, an artificial intelligence can’t legally invent something – only ‘natural persons’ can, says US patent office, BUSINESS INSIDER (Apr 30. 2020, 1:11 AM), https://www.businessinsider.com/artificial-inteligence-cant-legally-named-inventor-us-patent-office-ruling-2020-4?r=US&IR=T

[3] Miguel Bibe, DABUS: the ‘natural person’ problem, INVENTA (Sep. 27, 2021), https://inventa.com/en/news/article/681/dabus-the-natural-person-problem

[4] Meshandren Naidoo, In a world first. South Africa grants a patent to an artificial intelligence system, QUARTZ MEMBERSHIP (Aug. 9, 2021), https://qz.com/africa/2044477/south-africa-grants-patent-to-an-ai-system-known-as-dabus/

[5] Rebecca Currey & Jane Owen, In the Courts: Australian Court finds AI systems can be “inventors”, WIPO INTERNATIONAL (Sept 2021), https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2021/03/article_0006.html