人工智能生成技术方案的可专利性及权利归属
|
摘要
强人工智能或超人工智能逐渐脱离人类意志并能生成技术方案,这对专利制度提出了挑战:人工智能生成的技术方案是否应得到专利法保护、是否属于专利客体、是否符合"三性"要求以及应如何配置权利等。人工智能生成的技术方案多属制造方法或操纵方式,不应排斥在专利保护范围之外;坚持既有的绝对新颖性、实用性和创造性的要求,并不妨碍将其作为专利保护。囿于人工智能不具有法律主体地位,可在申请文件中标明其为名义上的发明主体,比较人工智能的研发者、所有者与使用者的贡献差异,应将人工智能生成技术方案的权利赋予使用者,由其享有权利收益。
Artificial General intelligence or artificial super intelligence gradually breaks away from human will and can generate technical solutions. This poses a challenge to the patent system: whether the technical solution generated by artificial intelligence should be protected by patent law, whether it belongs to the patent object, and whether it meets the requirements of "three natures", and how to configure rights and so on. The technical solutions generated by artificial intelligence are mostly manufacturing methods or manipulation methods, and should not be excluded from the scope of patent protection; adhering to the existing requirements of absolute novelty, practicability and creativity does not prevent it from being patented. In view of the fact that artificial intelligence does not have the status of legal subject, it can be marked as the nominal invention subject in the application documents, and the difference between the contribution of the developer, owner and user of artificial intelligence should be compared, and the right to AI-generated-technology should be given AI users, who enjoy the rights and benefits.
Artificial General intelligence or artificial super intelligence gradually breaks away from human will and can generate technical solutions. This poses a challenge to the patent system: whether the technical solution generated by artificial intelligence should be protected by patent law, whether it belongs to the patent object, and whether it meets the requirements of "three natures", and how to configure rights and so on. The technical solutions generated by artificial intelligence are mostly manufacturing methods or manipulation methods, and should not be excluded from the scope of patent protection; adhering to the existing requirements of absolute novelty, practicability and creativity does not prevent it from being patented. In view of the fact that artificial intelligence does not have the status of legal subject, it can be marked as the nominal invention subject in the application documents, and the difference between the contribution of the developer, owner and user of artificial intelligence should be compared, and the right to AI-generated-technology should be given AI users, who enjoy the rights and benefits.
引文
[1]Ray Kurzweil.The Singularity Is Near:When Humans Transcend Biology.Penguin,2006.
[2] William M.Landes,Richard A.Posner.The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law,Harvard University Press,2003.
[3] Yochai Benkler,The Wealth of Networks:How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.Yale University Press 1th ed.2006.
[4]林秀芹,游凯杰.版权制度应对人工智能创作物的路径选择——以民法孳息理论为视角[J].电子知识产权,2018(6).
[5]习近平.决胜全面建成小康社会夺取新时代中国特色社会主义伟大胜利——在中国共产党第十九次全国代表大会上的报告(2017年10月18日)[EB/OL].http://www.farmer.com.cn/xwpd.../tjyd/201710/t20171027_1332869.htm.
[6]王志刚.坚持以创新引领发展加快建设创新型国家[N].学习日报,2018-06-29(001).
[7]崔国斌.“计算机+程序”的可专利性分析[J].法学杂志,2005(06).
[8] 中华人民共和国国家知识产权局.专利审查指南[M].知识产权出版社,2009.
[9] 崔国斌.专利法:案例与原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2016.
[10] Domingos P (2012) A few useful things to know about machine learning.Communications of the ACM 55(10).
[11] 尹新天.中国专利法详解:缩减版[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2012.
[12] 梁志文.论专利申请人之现有技术披露义务[J].法律科学(西北政法大学报),2012(01).
[13] 冯晓青.知识产权法利益平衡原理[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2004.
[14] 吴汉东.知识产权基本问题研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[15] [美] 阿瑟·R.米勒,[美] 迈克尔·H.戴维斯.知识财产概要[M].周林,刘清格译,北京:知识产权出版社,2017.
[16] Peter Drahos.A Philosophy of Intellectual Property,Dartmouth Publishing Co.,1996.
[17] 冯晓青.知识共有物、洛克劳动学说与知识产权制度的正当性[J].金陵法律评论,2003年春季卷.
[18] 梁志文.论人工智能创造物的法律保护[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2017(5).
[19] Erica Fraser,Computers as Inventors - Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law,13 SCRIP Ted 305 (2016).
[20][美] 罗纳德·哈里·科斯.企业、市场与法律[M].盛洪译.上海:格致出版社,2009.
(1)Boulton v.Bull (1795) 126ER 651.
(2)Cochrane v.Deener,94 U.S.780,1877.
(3)“无需过度实验”标准是指熟练技术人员“无需付出创造性劳动”就能实施一项技术方案,但在某种程度上“无需过度实验”标准要优于“无需付出创造性劳动”标准。参见崔国斌.专利法:案例与原理[M].北京大学出版社2016:318-319.
(4)“选择发明”是指从许多公知的技术方案中进行选择,取得了预想不到的效果的发明;“组合发明”则是指将新技术与现有技术进行组合,或将几种现有技术进行组合,组合后技术效果超过了各种技术的综合。参见冯晓青,刘友华.专利法[M].法律出版社2010(2012年重印版):115.
(5)UK Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.§ 9(3) In the case of a literary,dramatic,musical or artistic work which is computer-generated,the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
[2] William M.Landes,Richard A.Posner.The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law,Harvard University Press,2003.
[3] Yochai Benkler,The Wealth of Networks:How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.Yale University Press 1th ed.2006.
[4]林秀芹,游凯杰.版权制度应对人工智能创作物的路径选择——以民法孳息理论为视角[J].电子知识产权,2018(6).
[5]习近平.决胜全面建成小康社会夺取新时代中国特色社会主义伟大胜利——在中国共产党第十九次全国代表大会上的报告(2017年10月18日)[EB/OL].http://www.farmer.com.cn/xwpd.../tjyd/201710/t20171027_1332869.htm.
[6]王志刚.坚持以创新引领发展加快建设创新型国家[N].学习日报,2018-06-29(001).
[7]崔国斌.“计算机+程序”的可专利性分析[J].法学杂志,2005(06).
[8] 中华人民共和国国家知识产权局.专利审查指南[M].知识产权出版社,2009.
[9] 崔国斌.专利法:案例与原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2016.
[10] Domingos P (2012) A few useful things to know about machine learning.Communications of the ACM 55(10).
[11] 尹新天.中国专利法详解:缩减版[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2012.
[12] 梁志文.论专利申请人之现有技术披露义务[J].法律科学(西北政法大学报),2012(01).
[13] 冯晓青.知识产权法利益平衡原理[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2004.
[14] 吴汉东.知识产权基本问题研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[15] [美] 阿瑟·R.米勒,[美] 迈克尔·H.戴维斯.知识财产概要[M].周林,刘清格译,北京:知识产权出版社,2017.
[16] Peter Drahos.A Philosophy of Intellectual Property,Dartmouth Publishing Co.,1996.
[17] 冯晓青.知识共有物、洛克劳动学说与知识产权制度的正当性[J].金陵法律评论,2003年春季卷.
[18] 梁志文.论人工智能创造物的法律保护[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2017(5).
[19] Erica Fraser,Computers as Inventors - Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law,13 SCRIP Ted 305 (2016).
[20][美] 罗纳德·哈里·科斯.企业、市场与法律[M].盛洪译.上海:格致出版社,2009.
(1)Boulton v.Bull (1795) 126ER 651.
(2)Cochrane v.Deener,94 U.S.780,1877.
(3)“无需过度实验”标准是指熟练技术人员“无需付出创造性劳动”就能实施一项技术方案,但在某种程度上“无需过度实验”标准要优于“无需付出创造性劳动”标准。参见崔国斌.专利法:案例与原理[M].北京大学出版社2016:318-319.
(4)“选择发明”是指从许多公知的技术方案中进行选择,取得了预想不到的效果的发明;“组合发明”则是指将新技术与现有技术进行组合,或将几种现有技术进行组合,组合后技术效果超过了各种技术的综合。参见冯晓青,刘友华.专利法[M].法律出版社2010(2012年重印版):115.
(5)UK Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.§ 9(3) In the case of a literary,dramatic,musical or artistic work which is computer-generated,the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |