CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION
Despite the recognition provided to Artificial Intelligence by certain countries, for example, the
USA1 and England2, it has not been accepted globally. Due to the immense worth Artificial
Intelligence possesses, it is imperative that a universal status be provided for the same, in order
to achieve better results in its work sphere.
Artificial Intelligence has begun to be alike humans in various sectors. It would not be surprising
to see such innovation perform better functions than human beings. Therefore, in order to bring
forth technology sans problems, a descriptive legislation is required which would solely govern
the innovations related to artificial intelligence.3 Specificity is the need of the hour, especially
when the subject-matter is of such huge potential. The Act could account for the ownership,
liabilities and remedies related to Artificial Intelligence. Such Act could encompass a framework
providing for the regulation of such human-alike models.
Moreover, with respect to the criminal liability, the creator could be burdened with it as he holds
the copyright to his creation. In such a situation, an innocent creator who has no knowledge of
the act committed by his technology could find himself liable of an act not committed by him.
Therefore, different liabilities need to be imposed on such a technological innovation; for
example, either destructing the Artificial Intelligence used or prohibit the usage of the
technology driving such Artificial Intelligence.
The need of the hour implies that clarity is provided with respect to application of patent and
copyright laws to Artificial Intelligence. The usage is such technology is only meant to increase
with the passage of time, and it is better to be prepared than solving issues at hand.
To help arrive at a viable solution for all the questions relating to Intellectual Property and
Artificial Intelligence, the first and foremost step would be to include all the stakeholders of the
Artificial Intelligence industry, in discussions with the legislators, in order to devise a better legal
framework. The importance of data to development of useful models is one such example. To
1
Annemarie Bridy, Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author, STAN. TECH. L. RE. 5(26,
2012), https:// web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/kernochan/09.materials-Bridy.pdf.
2
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, § 178, 1988 (UK); Copyright Act, § 2, 1994 (New Zealand).
3
Artificial Intelligence Poses a Greater Risk to IP than Humans to, TECHCRUNCH(Dec. 31, 2015), https://
techcrunch.com/ 2015/ 12/31/artificial-intelligence-poses-a-greater-risk-to-ip-than-humans-do/.
tackle these issues, establishment of IP facilitation centers to help bridge the gap between
practitioners and AI developers, and adequate training of IP granting authorities, judiciary and
tribunals is suggested.4 In terms of fast and rapidly changing environment of Artificial Industry,
and in terms of the applicability of relevance of IP therein, it is mandatory that necessary
business process reengineering, business process redefining/reconditioning should be done as
soon as possible in all laws governing Artificial Intelligence including not only IPR, but also IT
Act, and other relevant acts and their corresponding rules. This exercise includes a paradigm
shift in the overall thinking process of legislators, bureaucrats in the execution of exercise as
proposed above, including therein the stakeholders of AI industry in numbers as large as
possible. Further, in terms of applicability of general public, it is also pertinent to bring about a
change in public perception of implications of AI.
The NITI Aayog, in its discussion paper, attempts to suggest the setting up of a task force,
comprising jointly of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and DIPP, to examine and issue appropriate
modifications to the IP regulatory regime pertaining to AI.5
Further this exercise of moderating the existing legal regime includes meeting out of challenges
in following areas:
1. A data ecosystem is built with standards and protocols so as to be used across the
platforms of technologies.
2. AI is very much different from traditional Information technologies where application is
paramount and data is secondary. In AI, data is paramount and core technology is on
back-seat, rather AI is based on data driven technologies, we must have varieties of data-
capturing themes which run on local values of ingredients, like, the total life-cycle of
cane crop in north India may be different on various parameters from the cane crop of
Tamilnadu, and the data of north India of cane crop cannot be applied for cane crop of
Tamilnadu.
Technology is mainly of two types - core technology and data driven technology. 6 Core
technology is global whereas data driven technology is local as data is a local concept, generally.
Artificial Intelligence belongs to the data driven technology, therefore, it is important that we
4
Niti ayog paper
5
Supra
6
take help of local resources, local environment and local people in order to bring forth a better
research mechanism for growth of Artificial Intelligence and its related laws simultaneously.
Therefore, the role of the government remains the most crucial point in shaping a robust
intellectual property regime for Artificial Intelligence, which is, with the advancement in
technology, is the need of the hour.

CONCLUSION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONCLUSION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONCLUSION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONCLUSION

You might also like