Ancora su IP e Intelligenza Artificiale

Nuovo documento sul rapporto tra IP e Artificial Intelligence (poi: AI).

E’ lo studio  edito da The Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (Brussels) e da IViR – University of Amsterdam , autori Christian HARTMANN e Jacqueline E. M. ALLAN nonchè rispettivamente P. Bernt HUGENHOLTZ-João P. QUINTAIS-Daniel GERVAIS, titolato <<Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework, Final report>>, settembre 2020.

Lo studio si occupa in particolare di brevetti inventivi e diritto di autore.

V.  la sintesi e le recommendations per diritto diautore sub § 5.1, po. 116 ss :

  • Current EU copyright rules are generally sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted outputs.
  • The absence of (fully) harmonised rules of authorship and copyright ownership has led to divergent solutions in national law of distinct Member States in respect of AI-assisted works, which might justify a harmonisation initiative.
  • Further research into the risks of false authorship attributions by publishers of “work-like” but “authorless” AI productions, seen in the light of the general authorship presumption in art. 5 of the Enforcement Directive, should be considered.
  • Related rights regimes in the EU potentially extend to “authorless” AI productions in a variety of sectors: audio recording, broadcasting, audivisual recording, and news. In addition, the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-assisted databases that are the result of substantial investment.
  • The creation/obtaining distinction in the sui generis right is a cause of legal uncertainty regarding the status of machine-generated data that could justify revision or clarification of the EU Database Directive.
  • Further study on the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law, should be encouraged.

Si vedano poi quelle per il diritto brevettuale: sub 5.2, p. 118 ss:

  • The EPC is currently suitable to address the challenges posed by AI technologies in the context of AI-assisted inventions or outputs.
  • While the increasing use of AI systems for inventive purposes does not require material changes to the core concepts of patent law, the emergence of AI may have practical consequences for national Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) and the EPO. Also, certain rules may in specific cases be difficult to apply to AI-assisted outputs and, where that is the case, it may be justified to make minor adjustments.
  • In the context of assessing novelty, IPOs and the EPO should consider investing in maintaining a level of technical capability that matches the technology available to sophisticated patent applicants.
  • In the context of assessing the inventive step, it may be advisable to update the EPO examination guidelines to adjust the definition of the POSITA and secondary indicia so as to track developments in AI-assisted inventions or outputs.
  • In the context of assessing sufficiency of disclosure, it would be useful to study the feasibility and usefulness of a deposit system (or similar legal mechanism) for AI algorithms and/or training data and models that would require applicants in appropriate cases to provide information that is relevant to meet this legal requirement, while including safeguards to protect applicants’ confidential information to the extent it is required under EU or international rules [forse il punto più interessante in assoluto!]
  • For the remaining potential challenges identified in this report arising out of AI-assisted inventions or outputs, it may be good policy to wait for cases to emerge to identify actual issues that require a regulatory response, if any.

Ancora su intelligenza artificiale e proprietà intellettuale: indagine dell’ufficio USA

Il tema dei rapporti tra proprietà intellettuale (PI) e intelligenza artificiale (AI) è sempre più al centro dell’attenzione.

L’ufficio brevetti e marchi statunitense (USPTO) ha appena pubblicato i dati di un’indagine (request for comments, RFC) su AI e diritti di PI (ci son state 99 risposte, v. Appendix I, da parte di enti ma anche di individuals) : USPTO’s report “Public Views on AI and IP Policy”, ottobre 2020 (prendo la notizia dal post 12.10.2020 di Eleonora Rosati/Bertrand Sautier in ipkat).

Il report (id est, le risposte riferite) è alquanto interessante. Segnalo:


  • le risposte non ritengono necessarie modifiche al diritto brevettuale: alla domanda 3 (<Do current patent laws and regulations regarding inventorship need to be revised to take into account inventions where an entity or entities other than a natural person contributed to the conception of an invention?>), la maggiornza delle risposte < reflected the view that there is no need for revising patent laws and regulations on inventorship to account for inventions in which an entity or entities other than a natural person contributed to the conception of an invention.>, p. 5. Alla domanda 4 (<Should an entity or entities other than a natural person, or company to which a natural person assigns an invention, be able to own a patent on the AI invention? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial intelligence process that creates the invention be able to be an owner?>) , la larga maggiorahza ha detto che <no changes should be necessary to the current U.S. law—that only a natural person or a company, via assignment, should be considered the owner of a patent or an invention. However, a minority of responses stated that while inventorship and ownership rights should not be extended to machines, consideration should be given to expanding ownership to a natural person: (1) who trains an AI process, or (2) who owns/controls an AI system>, p. 7
  • sulla domanda 10 (<Are there any new forms of intellectual property protections that are needed for AI inventions, such as data protection? Data is a foundational component of AI. Access to data>), le risposte sono invece divise: <Commenters were nearly equally divided between the view that new intellectual property rights were necessary to address AI inventions and the belief that the current U.S. IP framework was adequate to address AI inventions. Generally, however, commenters who did not see the need for new forms of IP rights suggested that developments in AI technology should be monitored to ensure needs were keeping pace with AI technology developments.
    The majority of opinions requesting new IP rights focused on the need to protect the data associated with AI, particularly ML. For example, one opinion stated that “companies that collect large amounts of data have a competitive advantage relative to new entrants to the market. There could be a mechanism to provide access to the repositories of data collected by large technology companies such that proprietary rights to the data are protected but new market entrants and others can use such data to train and develop their AI.”>, p. 15


  • domanda 1: la creazione da parte di AI è proteggibile come diritto di autore? No de iure condito e pure de iure condendo: <The vast majority of commenters acknowledged that existing law does not permit a non-human to be an author (outside of the work-for-hire doctrine, which creates a legal fiction for non-human employers to be authors under certain circumstances); they also responded that this should remain the law. One comment stated: “A work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without intervention of a natural person contributing expression to the resulting works, does not, and should not qualify as a work of authorship protectable under U.S. copyright law.”109 Multiple commenters noted that the rationale for this position is to support legal incentives for humans to create new works.110 Other commenters noted that AI is a tool, similar to other tools that have been used in the past to create works: “Artificial intelligence is a tool, just as much as Photoshop, Garage Band, or any other consumer software in wide use today … the current debate over whether a non-human object or process can be ‘creative’ is not new; the government has long resisted calls to extend authorship to corporations or entities that are not natural humans>, p. 20-21
  • domanda 2: quale livello di coinvolgimento umano serve allora per la proteggibilità [domanda molto rilevante nella pratica!!] ? Non si può che vederlo caso per caso:  <More broadly speaking, commenters’ response to this question either referred back to their response to the first question without comment (stating that human involvement is necessary for copyright protection) or referred back and made some further observations or clarifications, often pointing out that each scenario will require fact-specific, case-by-case consideration. Several commenters raised or reiterated their view that natural persons, for the foreseeable future, will be heavily involved in the use of AI, such as when designing models and algorithms, identifying useful training data and standards, determining how technology will be used, guiding or overriding choices made by algorithms, and selecting which outputs are useful or desirable in some way. The commenters thus predicted that the outputs of AI will be heavily reliant on human creativity>, p. 22.
  • dom. 7 sull’uso di AI nelle ricerche sui marchi: v. la distinzione tra uso dell’USPTO  e uso dei titolari di marchio, p. 31 ss.
  • dom. 9 sulla protezione dei database, p. 36 ss.: la normativa attuale è adeguata e non c’è bisogno di introdurne una ad hoc come in UE : <Commenters who answered this question mostly found that existing laws are adequate to continue to protect AI-related databases and datasets and that there is no need for reconsidering a sui generis database protection law, such as exists in Europe. Furthermore, one commenter cautioned “that AI technology is developing rapidly and that any laws proposed now could be obsolete by the time they are enacted>, p. 37

Report del Parlamento UE sul nesso tra intelligenza artificiale (AI) e proprietà intellettuale (PI)

è uscito il <REPORT on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies> (2020/2015(INI)) – A9-0176/2020 del 2 ottobre 2020, approvato dal Parlamento UE (Commissione on Legal Affairs-relatore Stéphane Séjourné).

Non ci sono grandi novità : ripercorre le principali preoccupazioni e/o esigenze, che chi si interessa di AI è ormai abituato a leggere.

Riporto alcuni passi dalla MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION, p. 3 ss:

  • nota che i documenti della Commissione dello scorso anno sul tema dell’AI (v. mio post 20.02.2020) non tenevano conto della PI: <notes, however, that the issue of the protection of IPRs in the context of the development of AI and related technologies has not been addressed by the Commission, despite the key importance of these rights;>, § 1, p. 6.
  • eventuale legislazione dovrà essere tramite regolamento , non direttiva, § 3.
  • sullo streaming rileva <the importance of streaming services being transparent and responsible in their use of algorithms, so that access to cultural and creative content in various forms and  different languages as well as impartial access to European works can be better guaranteed;>, § 8
  • raccomanda un approccio settoriale e tipologico per la PI, § \0.
  • circa l’attuazione/enforcement, <acknowledges the potential of AI technologies to improve the enforcement of IPRs, notwithstanding the need for human verification and review, especially where legal consequences are concerned>, § 11;
  • sui non-personal data ,<is worried about the possibility of mass manipulation of citizens being used to destabilise democracies and calls for increased awareness-raising and media literacy as well as for urgently needed AI technologies to be made available to verify facts and information>, § 18;  e osserva che <AI technologies could be useful in the context of IPR enforcement, but would require human review and a guarantee that any AI-driven decision-making systems are fully transparent; stresses that any future AI regime may not circumvent possible requirements for open source technology in public tenders or prevent the interconnectivity of digital services>, § 18, ed ancora: <notes that AI systems are software-based and rely on statistical models, which may include errors; stresses that AI-generated output must not be discriminatory and that one of the most efficient ways of reducing bias in AI systems is to ensure – to the extent possible under Union law – that the maximum amount of non-personal data is available for training purposes and machine learning; calls on the Commission to reflect on the use of public domain data for such purposes>, § 18.

Dal seguente  EXPLANATORY STATEMENT, p. 12-13:

  • le domande di brevetto relato alla AI presso l’EPO sono più che triplicate in dieci anni;
  • AI è usata ad es. per la ricerca dello stato dell’arte;
  • rivalutare la PI alla luce dell’AI costituisce una priorità per le UE.