Patents reduce the pace and uptake of ag innovation
Kop ’20 [Mauritz; 2020; Stanford Law School TTLF Fellow, Founder of MusicaJuridica and strategic intellectual property lawyer at AIRecht in Amsterdam; Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal; “AI & Intellectual Property: Towards an Articulated Public Domain,” vol. 28]
IP on AI Inventions can be a roadblock for rapid technological progress and is therefore not beneficial for society. In general, the expansion of patentable subject matter to emerging technical fields hampers diffusion of technology and is detrimental to follow on innovation, employment and economic growth.110 Expansion diminishes freedom to operate. Patents on AI Inventions such as new medicine and personalized drugs are regarded as contrary to public interest.111 The same may apply to scientific disciplines such as biotechnology, analytical chemistry, plant breeding, quantitative genetics and nutrigenomics, that integrate AI in their research programs.112 There should be no plant variety rights on innovative crops invented by an AI system that crossed the autonomy threshold.
Moreover, there is no empirical data that supports the idea that incentives or (the expectation of) a return of investment are needed in case of ‘pure’ AI Inventions. There is also no evidence of a free riding problem in the sense that non-patented AI Inventions are not embraced by the market because of the fear that successful products might be copied freely by (human or AI) competitors.