Chapter 22: Artificial inventors
Restricted access

This brief chapter considers whether patent law doctrines as they currently exist will continue to foster human development and “progress’ once inventorship is entrusted, even only in part, to AI machines. It starts from the premise that technological change qua technological change - remembering that change and progress are not synonyms for change happens no matter what, progress, not necessarily - should not be the true aim of IP done well.  The idea, the chapter suggests, is to increase the percentage of change that actually constitutes progress. It then applies doctrines such as inventorship see if patent law will lead to more human progress, not mere technological novelty, if machines are considered as inventors. In doing so, it reviews and relies on a number of important contributions made by Professor Dreyfuss.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with your Elgar account