3D Baskı, Yapay Zekalı Robotlar Ve Yazılım İcatları, Teknoloji Fikri Mülkiyet Hukukunun Saltanatını Sarsıyor Mu?

Öz

Fikri Mülkiyet hakları yenilikçi teknolojilere ayak uydurmakta her zaman zor-lanmıştır. Yapay zekâ içeren çalışmaların gelişimi ve toplumsal kullanımı, fikri mülkiyet korumasının sınırlarını zorlamaktadır. Bağımsız olarak hareket eden ve üreten makinelerin artması buluş basamağı, buluş öncesi teknik durum ve teknik katkının nasıl değerlendirileceği gibi sayısız patent sistemi endişesini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bununla birlikte, patent sahiplerinin ürünler üzerindeki hak-larını, 3D yazıcılar tarafından da gerçekleştirilebilen doğrudan ve dolaylı ihlalle-re karşı nasıl koruyacakları gri bir alan teşkil etmektedir. Bu makale, mevcut pa-tent rejiminin potansiyel ihlalleri tespit etmek için, yazılımla yapılan çalışmaları, 3D baskıyı ve Robotik çalışmaları değerlendirmede yeterli olup olmadığı sorusu-nu analiz etmekte ve mevcut düzenlemelere göre olumlu bir şekilde cevaplan-madığı sonucuna varmaktadır. Bu makale, yapay zekâ kaynaklı eserlerin koru-ma kapsamının belirsizliğini aşmak için bazı yasal düzenlemelerin yapılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fikri Mülkiyet
• Patent
• Robotlar
• 3D yazıcı
• Yazılımsal buluşlar

3D Printing, Artificially Intelligent Robots and Software Inventions, Is Technology Shaking the Reign of IP Law?

Abstract

Intellectual property (IP) rights have always had difficulties to cope with disrup-tive technologies. Development of AI-implemented works and common use of it pushes the boundaries of IP protection. Increase of machines which can inde-pendently act or create things have posed a numerous concern of patent system such as how will the inventive step, prior art, inventorship and technical contri-bution evaluated. Nevertheless, the grey area is how patent holders will protect their rights on products against direct and indirect infringement which can also made by 3D printers. This article analyses that the question of is the current pa-tent regime sufficient to evaluate software-implemented works, 3D printing and Robotics to detect potential infringements and reaches the conclusion that it does not seem to be answered affirmatively based on current regulations. This article argues that some legal regulations should be done to overcome the uncertainty of AI generated works’ protection scope

Keywords

• IP
• Patent
• Robots
• 3D printing
• Software inventions

References

1. Abbott R, ‘I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law’ (2016) 57 Boston College Law Review 1079
2. ‘Artificial Intelligence in Robotics’ (IFR 2018)
3. Ballardini RM, Norrgård M and Minssen T, ‘Enforcing Patents in the Era of 3D Printing’ (2015) 10 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 850 accessed 26 April 2020
4. Bechtold S, ‘3D Printing, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy’ (2016) 47 IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 517 accessed 26 April 2020
5. Bradshaw S, Bowyer A and Haufe P, ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’ (2010) 7 SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society 5 accessed 26 April 2020
6. Cohen WM and others (eds), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (National Academies Press 2003)
7. Correa CM, ‘Internationalization of the Patent System and New Technologies’ (2001) 20 Wisconsin International Law Journal 523
8. Goldman E, ‘Fixing Software Patents’ (Social Science Research Network 2013) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2199180 accessed 26 April 2020

9. ‘Introduction into Service Robots’ (International Federation of Robotics 2016) Ionita C, ‘Software Patentability in Europe: The Rise of the Inventive Step Requirement’ (UPPSALA UNIVERSITET 2017)
10. Jaffe AB and Lerner J, Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (Princeton University Press 2004) accessed 26 April 2020
11. Keisner CA, Raffo J and Wunsch-Vincent S, Breakthrough Technologies–Robotics, Innovation and Intellectual Property, vol 30 (WIPO 2015) <>
12. Kitch EW, ‘Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents’ (1967) 49 Journal of the Patent Office Society 237 accessed 26 April 2020
13. Lim D, ‘AI & IP: Innovation & Creativity in an Age of Accelerated Change’ (2018) 52 Akron Law Review 813
14. Mendis D, ‘“The Clone Wars”: Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and Its Implications for Intellectual Property Law - Learning Lessons from the Past?’ (2013) 35 EIPR: European Intellectual Property Review 155
15. Mimler M, ‘3D Printing, the Internet and Patent Law – A History Repeating?’ (Social Science Research Network 2013) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2482551 accessed 26 April 2020
16. Osborn LS, 3D Printing and Intellectual Property (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) accessed 26 April 2020
17. Potts A, ‘Rise of the Machines’ The Economist accessed 26 April 2020
18. Ramalho A, ‘Patentability of AI-Generated Inventions: Is a Reform of the Patent System Needed?’ (Social Science Research Network 2018) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3168703 accessed 26 April 2020
19. Ravidt SY and Liu X, ‘When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: An Alternative Model for Patent Law at the 3A Era’ (2018) 39 Cardozo Law Review 2215
20. Russel S and Norvig P, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Pearson Education Limited 2013)
21. Shemtov N, ‘A Study on Inventorship in Inventions Involving AI Activity’ (Queen Mary University of London 2019)
22. Sherman B, ‘Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions and Limitations to Patentees’ Rights’ (WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 2010) SCP/15/3 Annex 2
23. Soans CA, ‘Some Absurd Presumptions in Patent Cases’ (1966) 10 Patent, Trademark and Copyright Journal of Research and Education 433
24. Sutton E, ‘Artificial Intelligence 2.0: Artificially Intelligent Guidance For Obtaining Artificial Intelligence Patents, as Presented to IPO (3-7-18)’ accessed 26 April 2020
25. Tobe F, ‘The Patent Grip Loosens’ (2012) 6 Everything-Robotics 2012 Van Overwalle G and Leys R, ‘3D Printing and Patent Law: A Disruptive Technology Disrupting Patent Law?’ (2017) 48 IIC - International Review of
26. Whadcock I, ‘A Third Industrial Revolution’ The Economist accessed 26 April 2020