Please will you send me links to anything you have come across that relates to the questions of : (i) can/should AI-derived work be IPR protected? and
(ii) can/should an AI be seen as creative to the extent that IPR come into play?
Yes, DABUS, but I haven't seen everything over DABUS, so please send it (preferably downloadable).
(iii) there are Masters and PhD theses, and publications thereof out there - please send them in.
I take IPR and patentability seriously - look at my publications. This is a request for help to find more , not a Masters' student's request that you do her work for her. If, like a certain German PhD student, you have finished, but not yet submitted, just tell me and I will keep YOUR insights private until you publish.
My name is Julian Cockbain, and for the last two decades my primary concern has been 'just what should the state protect, if anything, in relation to immaterial 'things''?
My view is that, at this point in the evolution of AI and machine learning, the derivative work is not patent eligible. if you take a look at my argument in the reference below. The main point in the article is that currently, at most, AI could get a non obviousness rejection since the work can be traced to a recombination of existing elements. I build up my argument from a mathematical viewpoint and the implications for a challenge to AI inventiveness would have to be resolved by providing evidence through a discovery process. The discovery would revolve around providing further support of creativeness and autonomy.
If you want to, you can message me and we can discuss it in-depth.
References
Article Machine learning AI systems and the virtue of inventiveness
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation