There is still no legal framework regarding the Intellectual Property of the creations and inventions made by Artificial Intelligence. The conclusion is from the judge judge of TRF2 and auxiliary of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Caroline Tauk, and lawyer Eduardo Magrani, president of the National Data Protection Institute. Both debated this Tuesday, the 25th, of the webinar “Artificial Intelligence – Great Controversies”, promoted by ABPI – Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property, under the moderation of lawyer Filipe Fonteles Cabral. “Wouldn’t a discussion in our legislation fit to admit that an AI system can author creations?”, Asked Judge Caroline Tauk. “Today we do not have machines with such a high degree of autonomy that they deserve a new legal personality,” added Magrani.
In her presentation, Judge Caroline Tauk discussed the ownership of creations and inventions produced by machine learning. She cited the example of two research projects by Surrey University in England – a food container and a warning light. The inventions, generated by an AI system called Dabus, had their patent denied by the USPTO – United States Patent Trademark Office and the EPO – European Patent Office with the argument that only natural persons can hold a patent. “The central question is what does autonomous creation in an AI system mean,” says judge Caroline Tauk. “To say that it is autonomous, it is necessary to have an isolated and independent performance from the human input of programmers”.
When addressing the topic “Artificial Intelligence Regulation Initiatives”, Magrani envisioned a cyber future, in which humans and machines will share tasks. “It is necessary to end the vision of rivalry with the machines, as we are going to lose this battle,” he said. “Yes, robots will be more intelligent than humans to perform specific tasks.” For him, with the advance of AI, contemporary law, with a “humanist, 18th century” matrix, will have to be updated. “Enlightenment law, which can only see people as superior to all species, is already late to recognize the right of animals and now it will have to understand when talking about robotic rights and electronic personality”, he added.