houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles ) (11/10/87)
I read an interesting news item in this weeks NewScientist magazine.
It said that the British parliment is reorganizing the UKs intellectual
property law. The interseting thing is that it has a section dealing with
intellectual property generated by Artificial Intelligences.
The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the
AI, NOT the programmer who designed it.
Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? (or to
the AI :-)? To me the British law seems unfair. If my AI program discovered
a new high temperature super-conductor, shouldn't I get some profit? The
user running my program may know nothing about super-conductors, why should
he get the patent?
What do you think?
-Chuck Houpt houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu
KY3Y@CORNELLA.BITNEThonavar@speedy.WISC.EDU (A Buggy AI Program) (11/11/87)
In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes: > >property law. The interseting thing is that it has a section dealing with >intellectual property generated by Artificial Intelligences. > > The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the >AI, NOT the programmer who designed it. > > Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? (or to >the AI :-)? To me the British law seems unfair. If my AI program discovered >a new high temperature super-conductor, shouldn't I get some profit? The >user running my program may know nothing about super-conductors, why should >he get the patent? Any such law that does not call for a full consideration of the particulars of each case is bound to be unfair. One may write a learning program that draws inferences based on data presented to it - in other words, it has the potential to discover something significant, given enough raw data to work on. Let us say, X writes the program and sells it to Y. Y runs the program on data he has gathered in some domain, superconductivity and the program discoveres a new high temperature superconductor. Although the program was written by X, Y was instrumental in getting the observed behavior out of the program by virtue of the data he provided to the program. In this situation, it is not clear how the credit for the discovery made by the program should be apportioned among X, Y, and the program itself. each case
jason@CS.UCLA.EDU (11/11/87)
In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes: > >The interseting thing is that it has a section dealing with >intellectual property generated by Artificial Intelligences. > > The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the >AI, NOT the programmer who designed it. > > Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? > What do you think? > The computer should get the credit. It does the thinking. If it put in the time and research, it should be justly rewarded. As Dr. Chandra says in 2010, a thinking being should be respected and valued as such. Granted, an AI is very dependent on the people around it, particularly the person who designed it (the programmer and/or computer architect), and EQUALLY the user. Any intelligence is worthless without a means of learning from its surroundings. Without a decent teacher and provider of information (the user), an AI will not produce anything useful, except perhaps a detailed and logical analysis of Cartesian doubt. Information provided by the user is inherrently different than that created by the programmer. The programmer simply creates a mechanism with which an AI can learn. The user then fills in the blank slate with news of the world. Jason Rosenberg jason@cs.ucla.edu
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (11/11/87)
$ The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the $ AI, NOT the programmer who designed it. $ $ Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? (or to $ the AI :-)? To me the British law seems unfair. If my AI program discovered $ a new high temperature super-conductor, shouldn't I get some profit? The $ user running my program may know nothing about super-conductors, why should $ he get the patent? $ What do you think? For the author of an AI to get the copyright/ownership of a users results is like the author of SPICE (or similar programs) getting the rights to all designs generated with it. Or UCB getting the rights to all programs designed under 4.2BSD, et al. Or the author of a CAD program having the copyright on all designs generated with the package. The point of this is that it is rather absurd for the results of a user's work under an AI to go to the author of the AI. For one thing, the AI would never be used by anyone because they couldn't keep the credit for their own work! The one glaring loophole here is that the license for the AI could state that the author reserves ownership of all results (then no one would buy it) or that the author receives a royalty from all results (reasonable but people wouldn't go for it) -- j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke "And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151)
darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (11/12/87)
>In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes: >> >>property law. The interseting thing is that it has a section dealing with >>intellectual property generated by Artificial Intelligences. >> >> The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the >>AI, NOT the programmer who designed it. >> >> Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? (or to >>the AI :-)? To me the British law seems unfair. If my AI program discovered >>a new high temperature super-conductor, shouldn't I get some profit? The >>user running my program may know nothing about super-conductors, why should >>he get the patent? > If I sold sophistocated tools like computer-controlled milling machines, I would not expect to own any interest in the output of the milling machine, even if the user has found a novel way to use it. An AI tool is somewhat like traditional hardware tools. If I sold consulting services, my contractor would expect to own the result of that work unless we negotiated a contract saying otherwise. I would expect to learn some improved skills and a new claim to fame in my resume and my name on the reports if I played a major role. If I taught a student methods of solving a problem, I might expect a few lines of acknowledgement in his dissertation, but no more. An AI program is not EXACTLY like any of these, but it seems to me if you seel an AI tool, the most you can expect is goodwill and further sales from a customers success with it. To have greater rights in the results, you could always write your license terms stating otherwise, but you might have a hard time making sales under such terms. -- Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD; unisys; 2525 Colorado Ave; Santa Monica, CA 90406 (213)829-7511 x5449 KI6VY darrel@CAM.UNISYS.COM or ...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!darrelj
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/12/87)
In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu>, houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu
(Chuck Houpt) writes that the new British intellectual property law will
rule that the output of an AI program will belong to the person running
the program, not the person who wrote the program.
Yes, this is fair. The basic reason that it is fair is that it is much
easier to discover who ran a program than to discover who "wrote" it.
Suppose H1 makes a useful discovery using program P1.
P1 is written using an knowledge representation system P2.
P2 is written using object-oriented extension to Prolog P3.
P3 is running in Prolog system P4.
P4 is running on UNIX.
In a typical AI system, all the programs P1..P4 are physically present
in a single memory image, and to some extent all are active. Let's face
it, the output of the interesting result might be critically dependent
on the correct behaviour of printf(). Why shouldn't AT&T get a slice?
Why shouldn't the typist who filed the purchase order for the program
get a slice? The program is almost certain to rely heavily on ideas
that were published in the open literature. Shouldn't Knuth & Tarjan &
the rest get a slice of almost everything? You have to draw the line
*somewhere*.
One of the most important requirements about the law is that people
should be able to find out what it is and take it into account in their
planning. Any rule which assigned a share of the rights to a discovery
to the authors of (say) the underlying Prolog system would be so hard
to operate that it would probably end up being a "whoever can hire the
best lawyers has ownership" rule.
Any software vendor who is unhappy about this will probably be able to
do something about it. For example, instead of selling P1 to H1, the
author(s) of P1 might sell H1 the right to operate P1 as their agent.
If you can sign a contract with an employer granting the employer the
rights to your inventions, you should be able to sign a contract with
a software vendor granting a share of your rights.
And think about the other side of it. Do the authors of AI programs
really want *liability* for everything their programs might come up
with? Fair is fair both ways around.marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (11/12/87)
In article <4631@spool.wisc.edu>, honavar@speedy.WISC.EDU (A Buggy AI Program) writes: > In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes: > > The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the > >AI, NOT the programmer who designed it. > > .... > > ... To me the British law seems unfair..... It's just like the law governing real intelligence. Your teachers created (or at least created a lot of value added in) your intelligence, but a stroke of your pen will assign any patents you create to your employer. Though your teachers may know more about your work than your employer, they have no claim on the intellectual property you create after you leave their campus. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
spf@clyde.UUCP (11/13/87)
In article <181@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu>, houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu >(Chuck Houpt) writes that the new British intellectual property law will >rule that the output of an AI program will belong to the person running >the program, not the person who wrote the program. Let's look at it this way: If you invent, say, an electronic circuit which is a big seller, should your parents get a share? After all, they built you, supplied you during your system development, and instilled you with most of your knowledge (sometimes through hired instructors, of course). And, come to think of it, THEIR parents taught THEM what they needed to know to successfully raise you to invent the circuit. At what point did you become completely independent of them and begin "thinking" on your own? Hard to say; probably nobody thinks COMPLETELY on their own. Witness the William James effect, wherein one has an "original" idea, which in fact was an idea heard somewhere else but "forgotten" because at the time it wasn't interesting. This is one reason why the notion of patenting/copyrighting ideas and information is so bizarre. How would you feel if you were the professor who taught circuit design to Shockley (of transistor fame)? Maybe a little cheated, maybe not. Peace, Steve
lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) (11/13/87)
M. Brilliant writes: >... >patents you create to your employer. Though your teachers may >know more about your work than your employer, they have no claim I assume that in this analogy, the programmer is the "teacher", the AI program is "you" and the user of the program is the "employer".
honavar@speedy.WISC.EDU (A Buggy AI Program) (11/14/87)
In article <1412@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >In article <4631@spool.wisc.edu>, honavar@speedy.WISC.EDU (A Buggy AI Program) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ writes: >> In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes: >> > The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the >> >AI, NOT the programmer who designed it. >> > .... >> > ... To me the British law seems unfair..... > >It's just like the law governing real intelligence. > ...... > >M. B. Brilliant Marty >AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 >Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1 It's probably about time some AI was put into the news software so that it can make sure that the pieces of article/s quoted are really from the authors to whom the quotes attributed. --VGH
kadie@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (11/14/87)
If your AI program (or any program) is really great there
are a number of ways to make more money per user from it.
One way that was already mentioned is to licence it. I remember
that some of the first compilers for microcomputers said that
you had to pay them money for any programs you sold that
were compiled with their product.
Another method is to charge for each run of your program. You do
this by setting up your own computer and having people dial in to
it. I know that this system is used by some companies that
have (non AI) programs that solve financial optimization problems.
The trouble with both these methods is that the
users don't like them as well as owning the program,
so you will not have as many costumers.
Carl Kadie
Inductive Learning Group
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kadie
CSNET: kadie@UIUC.CSNET
ARPA: kadie@M.CS.UIUC.EDU (kadie@UIUCD#\@#\@kthomas@yale-zoo-suned..arpa (Kevin Thomas) (11/16/87)
Distribution: In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes: > Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? > If my AI program discovered >a new high temperature super-conductor, shouldn't I get some profit? The copyrights and patents should all go to the user, absent any contractual agreements to the contrary. This is the same debate that went on about 10-15 years ago with compilers. Updated to the mid-80's, if I write a program in Turbo C that Peugeot sells, should Borland be entitled to royalties? The answer is "no, unless they say so in the sale contract, and the buyer clearly agrees to the language in that contract". Actually, in the case of derived products, it's worse: If Peugeot uses a Turbo C program to design a car, should Borland get a cut of the profits that result from the sale of the car, in the absence of any language in the sale contract? I would again say "no". Borland is free to put language into the contract that does or does not reserve whatever rights it wants or does not want. /kmt
goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (11/18/87)
Just to fan the flames, let me throw in 1 totally outlandish, 2 mildly
outlandish answers and a 4th that is not so bad (but I'm not sure whether I
buy the analogy.)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
1) Newsflash. Microsoft today filed lawsuit against 250,000 authors of
various books and papers for violation of copyright. Said a Microsoft
spokesman, "Yes, these people really wrote the manuscripts, but then they
gave them, in very raw form, to our program which then took it upon itself
to edit, layout, and publish them. Our program actually owns the copy
rights to these items." When asked how his company managed to file a
quarter of a million legal documents in one day, the spokesman said "No
trouble, we just used Think Technology's 'legal councillor' program." A
second later, the Microsoft representative ran from the room muttering "Oh
no ..."
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2) If the computer program is not intelligent enough to reply to the "raw"
data with :
"I don't know, nothing looks interesting here ..."
then to phone its author and say
"Hey Jaime, this formula makes a wonderful superconductor.
Do you want it, or should I tell Tom? "
then I doubt it has enough intelligence to "deserve" the credit itself.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3) In today's environment the user can shut off the machine and go get the
patent himself, claiming to have made the discovery without any computer
assistance. (Those who believe "an unenforceable law should not be a law"
may see some point in this.)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4) The user can claim "I did not ask the machine to find me a good
superconductor. All I asked it was whether this particular math problem
had a solution. The analogy leads us to the conclusion that we should give
credit to the author for a math theorem (and he probably already has that
credit in the literature), credit to the program for applying the theorem
to solve a particular math problem (usually quite technically difficult but
quite uninteresting to humans) and to the user for having applied the
solution of a math problem to discovery of a new superconductor.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mark Goldfain arpa: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
US Mail: Mark Goldfain
(just a student in the) --> Department of Computer Science
1304 West Springfield Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801ben@hpldola.HP.COM (Benjamin Ellsworth) (11/22/87)
As a hammer manufacturer do I get to charge rent on the houses built with my hammers? As a lathe manufacturer do I get to charge royalties for spindles turned on my lathes? The idea of charging for the output of the tools is patently (:-) ridiculous. You charge for your tool what the market will bear; charging for your creative input. You do not then get the right to "tax" the creative output of your users (except as you can convince your users to give it to you). I would not buy a software product which tried to harness my creative output. I would strongly encourage others not to buy such products. ----- Benjamin Ellsworth ...hplabs!hpldola!ben
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (11/23/87)
$ 1) Newsflash. Microsoft today filed lawsuit against 250,000 authors of $ various books and papers for violation of copyright. Said a Microsoft $ spokesman, "Yes, these people really wrote the manuscripts, but then they $ gave them, in very raw form, to our program which then took it upon itself $ to edit, layout, and publish them. Our program actually owns the copy $ rights to these items." When asked how his company managed to file a $ quarter of a million legal documents in one day, the spokesman said "No $ trouble, we just used Think Technology's 'legal councillor' program." A $ second later, the Microsoft representative ran from the room muttering "Oh $ no ..." I assume you meant to append a ":-)" to this and not to imply that it really happened. Or did it? -- j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke "And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.UUCP (ASt