Creativity, artificial intelligence, and the requirement of human authors and inventors in copyright and patent law

Copyright and patent law require the identification of an author or inventor, and further require the author or inventor to be human. We explore this requirement primarily with reference to U.S. law and provide additional illustrations from U.K. and E.U. law. A key rationale underlying the requirement of a human author or inventor is that there is something special and important about human creativity. As AI, particularly generative AI, becomes more capable of producing outputs that look like they could have been human-created, arguments have increasingly been raised that the AI-generated outputs should be afforded copyright and patent protection, on the same basis as those made by human authors and inventors. And there have been arguments that these AI-generated outputs exhibit sufficient creativity, novelty, or innovativeness, to satisfy the laws’ underlying creativity rationale. We examine the concept of creativity from a multidisciplinary perspective, and identify three conceptually distinct components, all of which are necessary for a complete account of creativity. The external component refers to whether an artifact (or idea, or other thing) exhibits the qualities of being novel, valuable, and (on some accounts) surprising. The subjective component focuses on the psychological process of a creative act, which appears to involve a dance between task-focused and mental-wandering states, mediated by a salience functionality, where the person recognizes and selects novel, appropriate ideas. Third, embedded in the analysis of both the external and subjective components is a (largely-implicit) recognition that the social context is integral to creativity; it plays a role in determining whether an artifact has value (or is “appropriate”), and influences the subjective psychological process of plucking certain ideas or conceptions out of the flow of mental activity. With this enriched account of creativity, we examine how copyright and patent law value not only the creativity of the artifact, but also (to varying extents) the subjective role and social context as part of creativity. We then consider some ways in which arguments that AI generated artifacts should be eligible for IP protection (e.g., because they are “just as good as” at least some human-generated and IP-eligible artifacts) are insufficient to satisfy the enriched understanding of the creativity requirement underlying the IP laws

Response to Pervasive Sequence Patents Cover the Entire Human Genome

In a widely reported article by Jeffrey Rosenfeld and Christopher Mason published in Genome Medicine, significant misstatements were made, because the authors did not sufficiently review the claims – which define the legal scope of a patent – in the patents they analyzed. Specifically, the authors do not provide an adequate basis for their assertion that 41% of the genes in the human genome have been claimed

Anterolateral approach with tibial tubercle osteotomy versus standard medial approach for primary total knee arthroplasty: does it matter?

The purpose of this prospective consecutive multicenter study was to investigate whether the type of surgical approach (medial parapatellar (MPA) or lateral parapatellar with tibial tubercle osteotomy (TubOT)) influences the early clinical and radiological outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA)

Integrating modeling, analysis, and optimization into a shape variable engineering design process

The theory necessary to integrate the computerized aspects of the engineering product development process in a manner that is consistent with the way engineers perceive design is developed. The engineering design process is discussed. A survey of each of its phases is presented and their features, requirements, and limitations are assessed. Computer aided engineering data structures are investigated. A single data structure that combines features of three common data base structures is proposed. Computerized analysis methods are evaluated. The boundary element method is shown to be well suited for many engineering design applications. Optimization techniques are reviewed and the potential use of artificial intelligence in engineering product development is discussed. A shape varying method of product representation based on a hierarchical integer data structure, with a constraint management scheme and automatic model enhancement features is developed. It is used to integrate the design, analysis, and optimization processes. A beam spring design is used to verify new theories. The feasibility of generating design geometry from simple shapes is shown. Methods for performing design analysis and optimization using shape descriptions are discussed. It is shown that shape defined geometry is consistent with the way engineers perceive design

The Myriad Decision and Patented Innovation in the Biotech Industry

On June 13, the Supreme Court decided ACLU v. Myriad Technologies, one of the more important patent cases of the October 2012 Term. In its unanimous decision, the Court held that isolated DNA in the laboratory is not patentable, but that synthesized versions of DNA and the methods for identifying DNA are patentable. Some in the biotech industry breathed a sigh of relief when the decision came down given widespread concern that the Supreme Court would reject all DNA-related patents. Although the Court appeared to take a middle-road position, it did overturn over a century of established patent doctrine that isolated biological material, such as DNA, falls within the legal definition a patentable “composition of matter. The biotech industry expends hundreds of millions of dollars to identify and isolate DNA and other biological material, productive labors creating the breakthrough medical treatments that are a commonplace feature of the healthcare industry of the last thirty years. The implications of the Myriad decision are profound, both for the biotech industry and for millions of people who benefit from lifesaving medical technology today. On this previously recorded conference call, our panel of experts discuss the Myriad decision and its implications for patented innovation in the biotech industry

The Myriad Decision and Patented Innovation in the Biotech Industry

On June 13, the Supreme Court decided ACLU v. Myriad Technologies, one of the more important patent cases of the October 2012 Term. In its unanimous decision, the Court held that isolated DNA in the laboratory is not patentable, but that synthesized versions of DNA and the methods for identifying DNA are patentable. Some in the biotech industry breathed a sigh of relief when the decision came down given widespread concern that the Supreme Court would reject all DNA-related patents. Although the Court appeared to take a middle-road position, it did overturn over a century of established patent doctrine that isolated biological material, such as DNA, falls within the legal definition a patentable “composition of matter. The biotech industry expends hundreds of millions of dollars to identify and isolate DNA and other biological material, productive labors creating the breakthrough medical treatments that are a commonplace feature of the healthcare industry of the last thirty years. The implications of the Myriad decision are profound, both for the biotech industry and for millions of people who benefit from lifesaving medical technology today. On this previously recorded conference call, our panel of experts discuss the Myriad decision and its implications for patented innovation in the biotech industry