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.