人工智能与知识产权 AI & IP （2）

人工智能发明的发明者是?
Who is the inventor of an AI invention?
随着启发式算法的逐渐完善，开发过程中人为干预的减少，人工智能发明的实际发明者变得模糊。但在申请过程中，必须确定发明的真正发明人和第一发明人。在这种情况下，谁应该是人工智能发明的发明者——是人类还是机器？这一问题与理论更有密切关系，可以通过重新解释“发明者”的法律定义来解决。到目前为止，“发明者”主要包括自然人。
As heuristic algorithms become more refined, and lessen human intervention in the development process, the actual inventor of an AI invention becomes ambiguous. Identifying the true and first inventor(s) of an invention is necessary in the application process. In such cases, who should be named as the inventor or inventors of an AI invention – a human being or a machine? This question, has a more theoretical relevance which can be resolved by the clarification of the legal definition of an 'inventor', which until now has primarily included natural persons.
美国：非自然人的发明创造符合条件吗？
US:Non Human Inventorship Eligible?
2019年8月，美国专利和商标局（USPTO）发布了一项通知，其中提出了以下问题：自然人可以用哪些不同的方式对人工智能发明做出贡献并有资格成为一名发明者呢？”并且，“现行关于发明创造的专利法律法规是否需要进行修订，以考虑那些自然人以外的主体对发明做出贡献的？”这些问题有助于进一步重释发明者的定义。
The USPTO issued a notification in August, 2019, in this context, which included the following questions: "What are the different ways that a natural person can contribute to conception of an AI invention and be eligible to be a named inventor?" and, "Do current patent laws and regulations regarding inventorship need to be revised to take into account inventions where an entity or entities other than a natural person contributed to the conception of an invention?". Such questions can help further clarify the definition of an inventor going forward.
欧洲：人工智能发明的否决
EU:Denial of AI inventions
然而，更有争议相关的问题是，如果发明者身份不确定，谁应该拥有人工智能发明的权利？这个问题最近在欧洲专利局（EPO）得到了解决，该机构拒绝向“达布斯”（DABUS）授予两项发明专利权。“达布斯”是一款人工智能机器，并在一份专利申请中被指定为发明者。专利申请人称，机器应该被视为发明者，而申请人和人工智能机器所有者应该被视为该机器创造的任何知识产权的受让人。然而，欧洲专利局根据《欧洲专利公约》（EPC）第81条和第19条第1款，拒绝该人工智能机器为发明者的申请。
The more relevant question, arguably, though, is, who should own the rights to an AI invention if there is ambiguity of inventorship? This question was recently resolved at the EPO, which denied the rights of two inventions to DABUS, an AI machine designated as the inventor in an application. The human applicants of the patent applications argued the machine should be recognized as the inventor and the applicant, and the owner of the machine, should be regarded as an assignee of any intellectual property rights created by the machine. The EPO however refused the applications with the machine designated as the inventor under Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC).
拒绝的理由
Reasoning of Rejection
欧洲专利局在该决定中得出结论，欧洲专利中指定的发明者必须是自然人，对“发明者”一词的理解为自然人，这似乎是一个国际适用的标准。它指出《欧洲专利公约》第81条规定，如果发明者与申请人不一致时，则申请应包含表明专利权归属的声明。第19条（1）规定发明者的名称必须包括姓、名和地址。《欧洲专利局》指出，事物的名称不能等同于自然人的名称，因为事物没有名称所赋予的权利，即人工智能系统没有法律上的资质。它还指出，人工智能系统或机器对其创造的东西不拥有任何可通过法律实施或者协议进行转让的法律所有权，且创造物的所有权问题不同于与有关发明权的权利问题。
In its decision, the EPO concluded that the inventor designated in a European patent must be a natural person and that the understanding of the term inventor as referring to a natural person appears to be an internationally applicable standard. It stated that Article 81 recites that if the inventor is not the same as the applicant, then the application should include a statement indicating the right to the European patent. Rule 19(1) requires that the designation of the inventor be given which includes the family name, given name, and address. The EPO noted names given to things may not be equated with the names of natural persons as things have no rights which a name would allow them to exercise i.e. AI systems have no legal personality. It stated that, AI systems or machines cannot have any legal title over their output which could be transferred by operation of law or agreement and that the question of ownership of an output is different from the question of the rights associated with inventorship.
不允许非自然人的发明者
Non-Natural Person as Inventor not allowed
因此，至少目前来说，欧洲专利局不可能接受机器作为发明者的申请。这样的申请或许在将来也会被拒绝，因为欧洲专利局引用数份文件表明《欧洲专利公约》的法律意图是将发明者限定为自然人，即人类。其他司法管辖区是否会遵循这一说法仍需等待。
Thus, the EPO is unlikely to accept applications with a machine as an inventor, for now. Such applications may also be denied in the future as the EPO cited several documents demonstrating that the legal intent of the EPC was define an inventor as a natural person, i.e., a human being. Whether other jurisdictions will follow the same route remains to be seen.