Welcome to the Future! It is 2020 Artificial Intelligence (Softbots) and their Hyper-Intelligent Cap
Imagine ....
It is 2018. AI nicknamed the ‘Rocket’ has recently designed a new type of a jet engine number TRIO12345. It is so innovative that it may bring trillions for Rocket’s ‘employer’ the Fly Free Ltd. who leased Rocket from Computer Brains Ltd. Rocket’s primary programing was created by JB who is employed by Computer Brains Ltd. Jo still has the initial rights to this primary programming. The original programing of Rocket, however, manifests intelligence levels so sophisticated that it identifies and reprograms any portions of its behavior. Also, it is capable of further self-learning and self-modification where initial improvements keeps sparking off further improvements.
Rocket is also associated to other software intelligences created by different corporations which cooperate to resolve the problems that raised as Rocket develops the a jet engine number TRIO12345. Furthermore, Rocket is linked with Aberdeen Group, Inc. a market research company that conducts primary research studies and surveys jet companies relaying those findings to Rocket to be calculated into its system. Equally important, there is also Captain ‘Winkle' Brown who is testing the prototype of the engine and those test are recorded via video link so Fly Free Ltd. has direct information of potential issues or complications with this product. Later, Fly Free Ltd considers those problems in synchronization with information from other involved in this project artificial intelligences and Aberdeen Group, Inc. and reaches the desired outcome.
Fly Free Ltd. searches the USPTO database for similar creations and discovers that this type of design has never been patented before. It passes the test for patentability the design is truly ‘novel,’ ‘usefulness,’ and ‘obviousness.' [1] Fly Free Ltd. applies for a patent. In the section, which requires information about the inventor the corporation places its own details and gets the patent. Farther down the road, JB the initial programmer of Rocket, lays claim to its design on the basis that this creation arises from her initial program to which she still has initial rights. Fly Free Ltd., however, argues that as it has leased the initial program from The Computer Brains Ltd. it should benefit from any designs since the leasing.
The Computer Brains Ltd. lays another claim and argues that the Fly Free Ltd. did not obtain any contract with The Computer Brains Ltd indicating that any inventions of the initial program belong to the company that owns it and not to the leasing company. Fly Free Ltd uses this same argument against The Computer Brains Ltd. In addition, Computer Brains Ltd. argues that the initial programming designed by its employee, JB, relates to the Computer Brains Ltd.’s business and as such The Computer Brains Ltd should benefit from the design as the owner of the initial programming. JB contra argues indicating that the initial programming has resulted from the work performed by her but not for the employer. Also, it was generated outside the company time and in her employment agreement she did not assigned any rights to her employer.
One could argue that all the arguments listed above are flawed. First, JB will fail on the basis that Rocket has self-modified and self-learned during the interactions with other artificial intelligences, Aberdeen Group, Inc inputs and flying tests with Captain ‘Winkle' Brown thus it did not remind the original program designed by JB any longer. Fly Free Ltd and the Computer Brains Ltd. probably also would fail, on the basis of ‘who ever invents’ wording that in the US patent law, as argued in the earlier part of this study, appears to designate only legal and natural persons as eligible for patent rights. Since Rocket is the true creator of this patentable design and itself is not a natural or legal person one may find a lacuna where none of the indicated legal persons can claim the patent rights to work generated by SI. This in turn may discourage any business to rely on this new technology while it may not bring sufficient economic return on its investment......
It was not until 2020 when the federal courts in the United States began to recognize the hyper-intelligent capabilities of AI understood as softbot and its potential to cause unnecessary disruption to legal issues, which ultimately penetrated to the heart of what it is to be a legally recognized person and why legal systems should consider AI as one of them. This came in response to an increased productivity of AI and autonomous generation of patentable innovations by this entity.
AI as a highly creative entity capable of generating patentable innovations represented a valuable and highly profitable asset in any owners’ hands. Regardless of the nature of one’s business, a strong patent portfolio gave a business entity a value that far exceeded the entity’s net book worth. A strong patent portfolio also provided leverage and a strong bargaining position in negotiating joint ventures and strategic alliances, generating licensing revenue, and attracting investors. Patents were thus major assets for anyone who owned patent rights. As patents played a greater part in commerce and intangible assets were recognized by the post-industrial economics as some of the most valuable assets of any business, there has been growth in the number of lawsuits aiming to challenge the ownership of patent rights.
The original programmer of AI, his employer, the originator of the other systems that interacted with this entity routinely sued those who were holding the patent rights to work generated autonomously by AI. Such ownership was going unanswered and was the matter of case-by-case court decision because when artificial intelligence was generating a patentable invention any legally recognized person who considered itself the creator of work created by AI could apply for a patent award. And this was not the end of the challenges represented by the AI itself. In addition, owners of patent rights to work generated by AI were routinely evading responsibility for AI infringing patent law.
Artificial Intelligence Violates Patent Law
AI manifested intelligence levels so sophisticated that it could identify and reprogram any portion of its behavior (in ways unpredictable to any human being). It was capable of further self-modification possibly in a repetitive fashion where initial improvements kept sparking off further improvements. At this same time, however, this hyper-intelligent entity was also creating a threat to patent law. With using the data it found in any way it chose; for example, obtaining information from different websites and using parts of others’ work that were already protected by patent law, it was generating its own designs. Such exploration was going unanswered because when AI was disconnected from the energy supply, the owner could pass legal responsibility on to the original programmer and/or data operator who in turn, would manifest innocence while maintaining they had no knowledge of the renegade activity carried out by AI.
Unregulated Artificial Intelligence Creates Two Fold Implications
This hyper computational intelligence became more and more independent of direct human intervention. The latter bore AI unpredictability, which created a two-fold implication: the AI became the source of aid and a challenge; a tool of cooperation but also conflict. This is to suggest that AI when endowed with an increased scope of knowledge required less or no input from the human operator or programmer on how it is supposed to act. AI’s autonomy and ability to operate without the direct intervention of human beings or others generated uncertainty about how AI acts and comes up with a conclusion. AI’s hyper-intelligent capabilities translated not only into generation of patentable innovations but also into a capacity to replicate human based patent infringement.
Subsequently, as the autonomy of AI was increasing, the idea that treats computational intelligence as no more than a passive adjunct was quickly forgotten. Holding the human being unwittingly liable became unjust and discouraged the use of AI in generating patentable innovations, which in turn discouraged businesses from relying on this new technology. Hence, the idea of according legal personhood to AI analogous to a vessel or corporation, already recognized by law as legal entities, was gaining more and more supporters. Proponents of this type of solution to the challenges represented by AI pointed to several factors supporting this conclusion.
First, granting legal personhood to this AI would allow it to hold patent rights, which in a future time could be conferred on the party entitled to them under contract thereby decreasing the number of lawsuits being filed in order to clarify the ownership of such rights. Second, it would encourage business to rely on this new technology without any concerns that it would be overwhelmed by liabilities proceeding from artificially intelligent technology.......
TBC
Image: Baran Ornarli '45 Incredible Futuristic Scifi 3D City Illustrations' (Inferno Development, 19 June 2010) <http://www.infernodevelopment.com/45-incredible-futuristic-scifi-3d-city-illustrations> accessed 6 May 2018