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

Uber Interfered With Privacy of Australians

The Australian Privacy Commissioner has determined that Uber interfered with the privacy of an estimated 1.2 million Australians.

The Uber companies failed to appropriately protect the personal data of Australian customers and drivers, which was accessed in a cyber attack starting in October 2016.

Rather than disclosing the breach responsibly, Uber paid the attackers a reward through a bug bounty program for identifying a security vulnerability. Uber did not conduct a full assessment of the personal information that may have been accessed until almost a year after the data breach and did not publicly disclose the data breach until November 2017. 

See Press Release from OAIC

See Decision

 

Hacktivist raided

Swiss Hacktivist was raided at the request of U.S. authorities for data theft and then publishing what was hacked.

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/be36b5d5-883b-49a4-a0da-d9a5ce07d852

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-12/swiss-police-raid-apartment-of-verkada-hacker-seize-devices

The Impact of Amazon

Amazon has a special website that sets out its impact.  The focus is on the impact of Amazon in the U.S.  It is hard to find out what positive impact Amazon is having in Australia. 

See https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact

If you contract with AWS on their standard terms, unless you are located in one of a few listed countries, you are agreeing to U.S. law for the contract, and having to go to the U.S. for any disputes.

"Governing Laws" and “Governing Courts” mean, for each AWS Contracting Party, the laws and courts set forth in the following table:  see https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/. I guess that provides jobs for U.S. lawyers!

Giving the Government Power to Disrupt

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 has been subject to criticism   It allows the government to hack into computers of people they think are bad people.  Could innocent bystanders be impacted, just like when Microsoft did protective hacking about 8 years ago?  See  https://www.csoonline.com/article/2449572/microsoft-hammers-no-ip-collateral-damage-includes-hacking-teams-legal-malware.html

Details of the Bill are here:

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/surveillance-legislation-amendment-identify-and-disrupt-bill-2020

The Law Council has released a 150 page criticism of the Bill.

Section 230

Has Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gone too far?  Some think it does:

Judge Robert Katzmann in a recent case wrote a 35-page dissent to part of the ruling, arguing that Facebook’s algorithmic recommendations shouldn’t be covered by the legal protections of Section 230.

Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a call to hear a different case that would have tested the Section 230 shield. In a statement attached to the court’s decision, Justice Clarence Thomas called for the court to consider whether Section 230’s protections had been expanded too far, citing Judge Katzmann’s opinion.

Justice Thomas said the court didn’t need to decide in the moment whether to rein in the legal protections. “But in an appropriate case, it behooves us to do so,” he said.

See NY Times article.

Many U.S. Internet businesses think that Section 230 has international application.  It does not.  It may provide protection in respect of U.S. lawsuits, but not lawsuits in other countries.

Blocking Bad Websites at the ISP

It is hard to have a bad website taken down.  In Australia, if the bad website is involved in copyright infringement, it is possible to have all Australian ISPs block the bad website, in effect making it disappear from the Internet as far as Australians are concerned.

That happened in recent Federal Court case, brought against Telstra and every other ISP in Australia, by a company that appears to operate a website for escort services.  Someone hacked their website and made copies of it.  The Federal Court blocked the copycat websites, using Section 115A of the Copyright Act.

See Gardner Industries Pty Ltd as trustee for the S M Gardner Family Trust v Telstra Corporation Limited [2021] FCA 294 (25 March 2021) (Greenwood J)

Who should police Internet content?

Who really runs the Internet? A lot of companies you rarely hear about.  A good article about the Internet and hate speech in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-moderation-tech-stack/

Suing Google for online review

A lawyer who is trying to track down the person who posted a bad review of her lost an application against Google, seemingly on the basis that she did not follow court proper procedures.

"However, if such a proceeding is to be brought it must be brought on proper material, on notice to Google, and it must be conducted efficiently and expeditiously. That is not how this proceeding has been conducted. One thing that must be avoided is the provision of a flurry of materials making inchoate arguments shortly before a hearing."

Garde-Wilson v Google LLC [2021] FCA 243

From The Age:  Gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson says she will take a court fight directly to Google after the Federal Court dismissed her bid to force the search engine giant to reveal who was behind negative online reviews.

Ms Garde-Wilson, who rose to prominence representing the who’s who of Melbourne’s gangland war, suspects a rival lawyer is behind a negative Google review left under the name “Mohamed Ahmed”.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/zarah-garde-wilson-loses-bid-to-find-who-was-behind-bad-google-reviews-20210318-p57byd.html

Privacy Commissioner hands down award compensating for non-economic loss

The Australian Privacy Commission made an award compensating individuals for non-economic loss for a privacy law breach.  This was a first in Australia.

See https://www.oaic.gov.au/assets/privacy/privacy-decisions/privacy-determinations/WP-and-Secretary-to-the-Department-of-Home-Affairs-Privacy-2021-AICmr-2-11-January-2021.pdf and  https://www.kwm.com/en/au/knowledge/insights/privacy-commissioner-hands-down-first-representative-award-20210203

The decision requires the Department of Home Affairs to compensate over 1,200 asylum seekers for inadvertently publishing their personal information online in 2014.  

It is somewhat amazing that this case took seven years to reach this stage.

Take care if you pay the ransom

In response to the proliferation of ransomware attacks over the last five years, a series of United States Executive Orders and statutes have come to include cyberterrorists amongst the list of banned individuals with whom U.S. persons cannot conduct financial transactions.  This impacts payments to cybercriminals for ransomware attacks.

There is a detailed article from a U.S. law firm here, that sets out when payment of a ransom could lead to breach of U.S. law.  See https://www.friedfrank.com/siteFiles/Publications/NYLJ_03.05.21_Kleinman.pdf

Privacy Rights Expanding in Australia?

Justice Keane of the High Court of Australia gave a speech at the end of 2020 that discussed privacy.

It was titled; "Too Much Information: civilisation and the problems of privacy" and argued that relying upon judicial development of the law to solve the problem of privacy "has been, at best, a hit and miss affair".

Justice Keane said it "would not be surprising were the High Court now to accept a tort of invasion of privacy" along U.S. lines.

"But such a cause of action would probably be confined to cases of intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of an individual or his or her private affairs.

"In the case of the publicising of a matter concerning the private life of an individual, the conduct would be actionable if the matter publicised is of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public."

He noted that in the recent High Court case involving the Australian Federal Police raid on the home of journalist Annika Smethurst the media "carefully eschewed any attempt to press forward . . . towards a broader protection of privacy".  (I suspect that the media did not want to expand the right of privacy in Australia even though it may have been helpful in this case - because the media since at least 1890 has been the subject of negative criticism regarding the media's lack of respect of privacy rights.)

AFR Article: https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/high-court-judge-takes-swipe-at-media-on-privacy-20200927-p55zo0

Text of Keene J's Speech: https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/keanej/keanej27Aug2020.pdf

Critical Infrastructure Reforms in Australia

The Australian Government is implementing "Critical Infrastructure reforms".  The consultation process for the new laws is being managed by the Critical Infrastructure Centre which is part of the Department of Home Affairs.

The CIC is currently assessing implementation of the governance rules to accompany the to-be-amended Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth) at a broad, industry-neutral level. The CIC is intending these rules to provide an overview of the role industry will play in self-assessment and self-reporting, with the specific rules and obligations around assessment standards to come from later consultations.

At a high-level, materials made available by CIC set out CIC’s intention for the governance rules including a breakdown of the intention behind specific provisions in the draft Bill.

 

Key points

 

• The Bill is not anticipated to pass until mid-2021 – while not all industry-specific rules may be finalised at that stage, consultation should be almost complete by then.
• Consultation with industry is happening on sequential basis – Electricity and Gas sectors are to start consultation in late March/early April 2021, and then other industries will each have a consultation period one after another.
• The consultation timeline will be quite aggressive – the governance rules are in consultation this week for publication in late March.
• The obligations will not activate immediately on enactment of the Bill, and are instead taking a ‘switch on’ approach. The CIC is vague on what the triggers for ‘switching on’ will be and it is not clear if it was an industry-wide event, whether it was incident-based or whether it would occur from a certain point.

Another U.S State brings in a privacy law

Virginia in the USA recently passed a new privacy law.  

A US law firm note is here:  https://communications.willkie.com/103/1291/uploads-(icalendars-pdf-documents)/virginia-is-the-new-privacy-leader-what-s-next-after-virginia-passes-comprehensive-privacy-law.pdf and another is here: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/virginia-legislature-sends-novel-2533245/

An Australian Computer Law Journal

The most recent issue of the Journal of the Australian Society for Computers and the Law is available here:  http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZCompuLawJl/recent.html

This journal includes articles on privacy law and cybersecurity law.

U.S. Privacy Legislation - or lack of it

In January, the NY Times published a long article on Tech predictions for 2021.  There was a section on privacy laws, that was U.S. focused but interesting reading.  An extract:

Lawmakers will take on comprehensive federal privacy legislation. (Hopefully.)

Greg Bensinger, member of the New York Times editorial board:

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have indicated that they suddenly care about Americans’ privacy rights online. I am looking forward to them putting their money where their mouth is in 2021 by rolling out comprehensive federal privacy legislation.

Is this a pipe dream? Yes. But if anything good comes from backlash against technology companies, I hope it’s that consumers have more control over the rights to their own data.

Landmark White data breach court case

About two years ago, Landmark White (a property valuation firm in Australia) was subject to a number of cyber security incidents.  Justice moves slowly.

Landmark White’s cyber security standards will come under the spotlight this week, as the trial kicks off of an IT contractor accused of stealing customer data from the firm and putting it on the dark web.

See https://www.afr.com/property/commercial/landmark-white-data-breach-trial-begins-20210304-p577sx

Patentable Subject Matter in Australia

The Federal Court of Australia has sided with the Patents Office and upheld a rejection of a patent application for an invention that improves the timeliness and accuracy of risk information.  It was decided by the judge that the claimed invention was merely a business method or scheme for sharing and completing work place health and safety documents, and was thus unpatentable.

See Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) [2021] FCA 31  https://jade.io/article/783336

Amazon's patent rejected in Australia

Amazon was refused a patent in Australia on the grounds that the invention was not patentable subject matter.

See Amazon Technologies, Inc. [2021] APO 7  https://jade.io/article/785911

The patent application was directed to the field of computer resource virtualization.  Providers, such as Amazon, manage large-scale computing resources that can be accessed on demand by their many customers via virtual machines.  This allows various computing resources to be efficiently and securely shared by multiple customers. 

New European Data Breach Notification Guidelines

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has recently published guidelines with examples for data breach notification under the GDPR.

The Guidelines set out common types of data breaches, such as ransomware, lost or stolen devices, social engineering attacks and the like, and set out case studies to clarify notification and remediation obligations.

See https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/consultation/edpb_guidelines_202101_databreachnotificationexamples_v1_en.pdf

Did Facebook overpay in privacy settlement to protect Zuckerberg?

According to Reuters, Facebook Inc may have paid $4.9 billion more than the maximum penalty it faced under a settlement agreement with regulators related to allegations it mishandled user privacy, according to a recent court ruling.

The U.S. court cited a paper by Gibson Dunn attorneys when directing Facebook to turn over documents to shareholders who are trying to determine if Facebook overpaid to protect Zuckerberg.

“The documents already produced provide no insight into why Facebook would pay more than its (apparently) maximum exposure to settle a claim,” said the court.

See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-settlement-idUSKBN2AB01P

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

FTC priorities under Biden Administration

U.S. law firm Wilson Sonsini has a good summary of likely FTC priorities.

See https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/acting-ftc-chairwoman-slaughter-previews-potential-ftc-priorities-under-new-administration.html

Potential key priorities:

• Requirements in privacy and data security consent orders that represent a departure from the FTC's typical approach to consumer notice and disgorgement, including requirements that companies "disgorge" the data and benefits that they amassed through their allegedly wrongful behavior, and provide notice to consumers of the FTC settlement and the conduct at issue in the settlement; and
• Increased FTC scrutiny of health apps, facial recognition technology, algorithms and AI, and other issues related to the pandemic and racial equity, particularly where those issues fall under the purview of the FCRA or ECOA.

Section 230

Opinion | The Constitution Can Crack Section 230
Tech companies think the statute allows them to censor with impunity. The law is seldom so simple.

Read in The Wall Street Journal: https://apple.news/AykpuzRwHQJeQWQoc3GPxyg 

APRA's focus on cybersecurity

APRA speech by Geoff Summerhayes in late 2020 on APRA’s current focus on cybersecurity: https://www.apra.gov.au/news-and-publications/executive-board-member-geoff-summerhayes-speech-to-financial-services

Flight Centre's Privacy Act breach

Flight Centre organised a hack-a-phon in 2017, and gave those participating access to real customer data.  This resulted in a breach of the Privacy Act.

Decision here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AICmr/2020/57.html

New Californian Privacy Law: CPRA to effectively replace CCPA

On U.S. Election Day, 3 November 2020, voters in the State of California overwhelmingly voted in favour of Proposition 24—a ballot measure that creates the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). The CPRA revises and expands the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), creating new industry requirements, consumer privacy rights and enforcement mechanisms. 

The CPRA's new obligations for businesses will come into effect on 1 January 2023.  At that time, the CPRA will effectively replace the CCPA.  In the meantime, the CPRA requires that a new California privacy agency be established and that it adopts implementing regulations.

Telstra ordered to help identify critic of doctor

Posting anonymous reviews to defame someone is risky.

Telstra has been ordered to provide documents to a doctor so that the doctor can assist identify someone who supposedly defamed him.

See this recent Federal Court decision:  Colagrande v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 1595

Telstra did not appear at this court hearing.

This is similar to this case against Google:  http://www.cyberspac.com/2020/03/google-sued-again-for-identity-of-users.html and also these cases:

Kukulka v Google LLC [2020] FCA 1229

Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126 

Titan Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cross [2016] FCA 1241 (patent attorney ordered to hand over file)

Titan Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cross [2016] FCA 890 (written by Justice Edelman, now on the High Court)

Defamation for Facebook posts

A wedding planner has won a 'landmark' court case against consumers who made defamatory comments about her business on social media.

Tristan Moy, 33, from Brisbane, moved to Indonesia in 2014 to run a business arranging weddings in Bali for Australian tourists. 

But she suffered 'hurt and humiliation' when two Australian women began posting salacious comments about her and her business on Facebook in 2017.

They included accusations Ms Moy was unprofessional, bullied her clients and would try ruin her client's weddings.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8948725/Two-trolls-ordered-pay-150k-defamatory-comments-Facebook.html

See also this old Fordham article