7-Eleven Stores in Australia breached privacy through facial recognition software

A recent decision of the Privacy Commission found that 7-Eleven Stores breached the privacy of Australians by photographing customers who completed in store surveys, and then used facial recognition software to determine characteristics of the customers.

See Decision

The store was in breach because it

• collected individuals’ sensitive information without consent, and where that
  information was not reasonably necessary for the store’s functions and
  activities, and
  

• failed to take reasonable steps to notify individuals about the fact and circumstances
  of collection and the purposes of collection of that information.    

  See story in The Guardian 

US Court says AI machine cannot be inventor

Reaching a different conclusion to an Australian Federal Court decision, a US District Court looking at the same facts decided that an AI machine cannot be an inventor on a patent.

See Bloomberg story: “The unequivocal statements from the Federal Circuit that ‘inventors much be natural persons’ and ‘only natural persons can be inventors’ supports the plain meaning of ‘individual’ in the Patent Act,” the judge ruled.

Automonous Vechicles

 “The real problem is going to be, at what point is it still ethical to let the human drive,” Lunn said. “But before that, AI has to continue to learn from human drivers. Autonomy will have to make sure that we never have a trolley problem.”

Washington Post, 6 August 2021

AI machine can be an inventor, says Australian judge

A single judge of the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Beech, has overruled the Commissioner of Patents and decided that a computer program (an artificial intelligence system) can be an "inventor" for the purposes of the Australian Patents Act in respect of a PCT patent application.

In summary, the judge found:

• An AI system is not a legal person.
• An AI system cannot own a patent.
• An AI system cannot assign a patent.
• But an AI system can be an inventor of an invention that is the subject of a patent application.
• Ownership of the invention goes to a legal person -- in this case, the person who owned the copyright in the AI system and operated the AI system.

Justice Beech said:

"167    Dr Thaler is the owner, programmer and operator of DABUS, the artificial intelligence system that made the invention; in that sense the invention was made for him. On established principles of property law, he is the owner of the invention. In that respect, the ownership of the work of the artificial intelligence system is analogous to ownership of the progeny of animals or the treatment of fruit or crops produced by the labour and expense of the occupier of the land (fructus industrialis), which are treated as chattels with separate existence to the land. ...

189    In my view, Dr Thaler, as the owner and controller of DABUS, would own any inventions made by DABUS, when they came into his possession. In this case, Dr Thaler apparently obtained possession of the invention through and from DABUS. And as a consequence of his possession of the invention, combined with his ownership and control of DABUS, he prima facie obtained title to the invention. By deriving possession of the invention from DABUS, Dr Thaler prima facie derived title. In this respect, title can be derived from the inventor notwithstanding that it vests ab initio other than in the inventor. That is, there is no need for the inventor ever to have owned the invention, and there is no need for title to be derived by an assignment. ...
 

194    Now more generally there are various possibilities for patent ownership of the output of an artificial intelligence system. First, one might have the software programmer or developer of the artificial intelligence system, who no doubt may directly or via an employer own copyright in the program in any event. Second, one might have the person who selected and provided the input data or training data for and trained the artificial intelligence system. Indeed, the person who provided the input data may be different from the trainer. Third, one might have the owner of the artificial intelligence system who invested, and potentially may have lost, their capital to produce the output. Fourth, one might have the operator of the artificial intelligence system. But in the present case it would seem that Dr Thaler is the owner."

 In short, title to the invention derives from an inventor who does not own the invention.

This case is not particularly helpful in determining who is the owner of the invention if there is more than one person involved -- for example, if Microsoft owns the copyright in the AI program running in the cloud, 20 people collect the training and input data over many years, I design the problem, and you and a team of people operate the AI system.

Does this case also mean that a corporation or a monkey could be an inventor?

The Patents Act requires that the inventor's name and address be provided to the Patents Office.  Does an AI system have a legal name or an address?  The case did not consider this.  Dr Thaler named his AI system as DABUS, so I guess that is the name of the inventor.  It is not really a name in the legal sense.

The judge spent little time considering the basis of the patent system - to incentivize people to make inventions.  A computer does not need an incentive.  The judgment briefly mentions this, and appears to suggest that creating an incentive to create an AI machine that invents is sufficient.  On that basis, patent patent system should reward parents for having sex to create a child and teaching the child to invent.

The judgment is artificial and shows little real intelligence.

And see about this South African patent: https://www.cyberspac.com/2021/08/ai-machine-can-be-inventor-says.html  Did it go through a full examination?

How reliable is AI in criminal evidence

A good article about how an AI system produces evidence used by police.  But humans changed the output of the AI algorithm, calling the evidence into question.

Vice Article about gunshot detection

Can an AI machine be an inventor?

The Australian Patents Office has decided that an AI machine cannot be an inventor for the purposes of granting a patent.

"Section 15(1) is inconsistent with an artificial intelligence machine being treated as an inventor, since it is not possible to identify a person who can be granted a patent."

Further, the person who operated the AI machine was also not an inventor:

"I have considered the alternative option that Dr Thaler is the inventor.  It seems clear that Dr Thaler asserts that he did not devise the invention but merely acquired knowledge of the invention from the artificial intelligence machine.  In the light of JMVB Dr Thaler would not be the inventor."

See Stephen L. Thaler [2021] APO 5

AI and human rights

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/publications/using-artificial-intelligence-make-decisions-addressing

The Australian Human Rights Commission released a paper today on AI, bias and fairness.  It is worth reading.

AI Action Plan for Australia

In addition to the privacy review, the government is conducting an AI review.

"The Australian Government recognises that accelerating the development, adoption and adaption of artificial intelligence (AI) will have profound social and economic outcomes for all Australians. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to strive for a better future. A future where Australians develop and use AI to solve national problems, build competitive businesses and increase our collective wellbeing.
 
To achieve this vision, the Australian Government will need a plan. To inform this plan, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources has released a discussion paper that seeks public input to an AI Action Plan for Australia."
 
You can read the discussion paper and have your say at: https://consult.industry.gov.au/digital-economy/ai-action-plan
 
Submissions close on Friday, 27^th November 2020, two days before submissions close for the privacy law consultation.

AI, cars, ethics, and the trolley problem

A good article from Harvard looking at autonomous vehicles, ethics and the trolley problem.

Putting Common Sense Back into the Driver's Seat

The impact of AI on IP

The UK Intellectual Property Office has announced a call for views on artificial intelligence and intellectual property. In particular, the UK IPO wants to hear about the implications that AI might have for IP policy, and, likewise, what impact IP might have on AI. 

See the full consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views

The consultation closes on 11 November 2020.

Musicians Create Every Melody in Existence to Avoid Copyright Infringement

Two programmers who are musicians have supposedly created every possible MIDI melody in existence, saved this to a hard drive, copyrighted the whole thing, and then released it all to the public in an attempt to stop musicians from getting sued for copyright infringement.

Vice Article

Whether this actually accomplishes what they want to do is uncertain.

Using small snippets of public available music (or computer code) to create a work, that is the same as a well-known larger work, may still be copyright infringement.  It depends on whether the creator knew of and had access to the well-known larger work.

See Dais Studios case, where Ben Petro copied public Java script to create a larger computer program.  See also AFR Article

This also has relevance to AI programs and how they are trained.

Who owns the copyright and inventions produced by an AI machine?

These articles are some of the interesting articles dealing with ownership of copyright and patentable inventions produced by an AI machine or robot.

Machine learning to machine owning: Redefining the copyright ownership from the perspective of Australian, US, UK and EU Law. European Intellectual Property Review, (2018) 40 (11), pp. 722-728.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3293518

Artificial Intelligence, Copyright and Accountability in the 3A Era: The Human-like Authors Are Already Here: A New Model, 2017 M. L. R<. 659   https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=lr

When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law (March 1, 2017). Cardozo Law Review, http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RAVID.LIU_.39.6.5-1.pdf

Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Investors under U.S. Intellectual Property Law, 24 Rich. J.L. & Tech. i (2018), https://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2018/04/Pearlman_Recognizing-Artificial-Intelligence-AI-as-Authors-and-Inventors-Under-U.S.-Intellectual-Property-Law.pdf

Also, have a look at these videos about machine generated art:

• Harold Cohen – The Age of Intelligence Machines (1987) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPczQgCuOOc&feature=youtu.be
• Is it art? Portrait created by algorithm on sale at Christie’s – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeshFQZCD7E

When are AI systems legally liable

Here are some good readings if you are interested in the legal responsibility of AI systems:

Machines without Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 117 (2014)  http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/AI/Vladeck.pdf

Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies (May 30, 2015). Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 29, No. 2, Spring 2016.  http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v29/29HarvJLTech353.pdf

Servers and Waiters: What Matters in the Law of A.I. 21 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 167 (2018), https://law.stanford.edu/publications/servers-and-waiters-what-matters-in-the-law-of-a-i/

Accountable Algorithms, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 633 (2017) https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol165/iss3/3

Morality and AI Machines

An interesting site from MIT -- a platform for judging human insight into moral decisions made by machines:

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

How do you prepare for the AI revolution?

This is a great book to help you prepare for the AI revolution that is about to hit us:




Also, a similar book that is more general: