With respect to patent protection, the consensus remains that inventors must be human, but some differences arose as to what human activities should qualify as a contribution to the conception of an invention. The Report notes that “activities such as designing the architecture of the AI system, choosing the specific data to provide to the AI system, developing the algorithm to permit the AI system to process that data, and other activities not expressly listed here may be adequate to qualify as a contribution to the conception of the invention.” Report, p. 5. But perhaps the USPTO will need to revisit the question of whether machines can be inventors when and if science agrees that machines can “think” on their own.
Finally, we will likely see further developments in the case law on the issue of copyright infringement through machine ingestion of data, and the applicability (or not) of the fair use defense.
See the full story here: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/uspto-report-on-public-views-on-21942/