All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Preview: WIPO director general predicts AI liability changes

gurry.jpg

Francis Gurry says liability in the event of AI-related accidents could shift from traditional interpretations, and that he rejects the idea of affording patent protection to machine inventors



gurry.jpg

The director general of WIPO says that questions of liability for artificial intelligence should be linked to IP ownership as technological developments begin to change established laws.

Francis Gurry suggests in an interview with Managing IP that the onus could fall on creators and IP owners in situations where the traditional liable party is no longer part of the equation.

Pointing to driverless cars as a hypothetical example, Gurry says international conventions would usually point to liability in the event of an accident resting with the driver.

“Remove the driver, and who is responsible?” Gurry asks. “It’s a complex question and depends on what went wrong. The person who created the AI and put it into operation has the responsibility, I think.”  

Gurry spoke to Managing IP yesterday during the AI: Decoding IP conference in London.

He also says he does not see why traditional IP rights should be attributed to non-human entities, adding that liability and property rights should be connected in a future world.

“It is right that there should always be a human at the end of it,” he says. “Look at automated cars or drones, if you have a machine or algorithm organised in certain way and you attribute the rights resulting from that to a machine, what do you do if the drone or vehicle crashes into a primary school?

“Liability is connected with property rights.”

He adds that he does not see much appetite to attribute rights to machines from an innovation standpoint either: “Why do we attribute rights? One is the moral reason of giving just reward for someone who has created something. But the main reasons are economic, because we want to encourage others to develop innovation.”

The full interview, in which Gurry talks more about how to determine property rights in the AI world, how technology has improved patent and trademark filing systems, and how the use of data can be linked to IP, will be published on Managing IP next week.



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources say the Supreme Court’s decision to take on Sky v SkyKick puts uncertainty back into the mix, just when IP owners thought they knew what was what
Charles Feng, partner at East & Concord in Beijing, explains why filing for a trademark early is still a brand’s best bet
Counsel at IBM, Novartis, BMS and four other companies delve into whether the new Section 101 bill addresses their concerns
Clearance searches are especially important when counsel can’t rely on the USPTO’s opinion before key deadlines, say sources
VLSI case halted in Delaware; Netflix sues Bridgerton rip-off; Ex-GSK scientist escapes damages; US Copyright Office debuts new software; Abbvie scores Humira patent thicket win; Russia tables bill on illegal blocking of copyrighted content
An England and Wales High Court judgment over a disclosure error shows why law firms must never play a distant role when advising clients
Italy is in pole position to replace London as a central division host but must weather a political storm first
The senator’s proposed Section 101 legislation would cut down on exceptions to patent eligibility in the US
Ken Korea, founder of Colev Law and former head of US IP at Samsung, sets out the problems with anti-suit injunctions and the problem of getting rid of them
Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would evaluate the need for recording examiner interviews, among other measures
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree