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.
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your Elgar Online account
-
Show ItemsFront Matter
-
Show ItemsPart I: ADDRESSING BOUNDARIES AND IMBALANCE
-
Show ItemsPart II: PUBLIC HEALTH, PANDEMICS AND CRISES
-
Show ItemsPart III: PATENT CHALLENGES
-
Show ItemsPart IV: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND COURT SPECIALIZATION
-
Part V: AUTHORS AND INVENTORS
-
Show ItemsPart VI: EXPRESSIVE GENERICITY AND FREEDOMS
-
Show ItemsPart VII: INFORMATION/DATA AND CONFIDENTIALITY/PUBLICITY
-
Show ItemsPart VIII: NON-DISCRIMINATION ISSUES
-
Show ItemsPart IX: MAKING INTERNATIONAL IP AND INVESTMENT LAW
-
Show ItemsPart X: INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL DRIVERS
-
Show ItemsBack Matter
