Artifical Intelligence

The USPTO recently released the report “Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy”. The report is part of the USPTO’s effort to engage with the innovation community and experts on AI and to promote innovation of AI through appropriate intellectual property incentives.

The report includes the analysis of nearly 200 responses received from individuals and organizations to federal notices published in August and October 2019 to solicit public comments on patenting AI inventions and the impact of AI on other areas of intellectual property policy. The USPTO requested feedback on issues such as whether current laws and regulations regarding patent inventorship and authorship of copyrighted work should be revised to take into account contributions other than by natural persons.

AI in Evolution. As an initial matter, commenters noted that AI has no universally recognized definition, and any definition used as part of an AI policy must be dynamic enough to evolve as AI technology evolves. Some suggested that the USPTO revisit the question of non-human inventions when artificial general intelligence (AGI)—AI that mimics human intelligence—is a reality and not just “purely hypothetical.”

Sufficient and Not Necessary. The majority of respondents took the view that current U.S. IP laws provide sufficient protection for development using current AI technology. To many, existing contract law principles can be used to adequately fill in any gaps as AI technology further advances. Generally, commentators were divided on the need for new intellectual property rights to address AI inventions. Those focusing on new protections were focused mostly on data, with some suggesting that advances in AI should warrant more protection for data rights, including sui generis protection.

Human Not Machine Inventors. With respect to patents, commenters agreed in large part that, for now, humans, not machines, must be inventors. Further, most agreed that only a natural person or a company, through an assignment, should be considered the owner of a patent or an invention, although some suggested extending ownership to those who train an AI process or own or control an AI system. Other respondents were concerned on the practical effects of recognizing non-natural inventors, e.g., how would a machine sign an oath?


Continue Reading In the Public Eye: USPTO Issues Report on AI

Singapore has enacted a law granting government ministers the power to require social media platforms to completely remove or place warnings alongside posts the authorities designate as false.

Unlike the compensation earned by child stars who perform on television, in films, or on other traditional media in California, the income generated by children who

A federal district court in California has added to the small body of case law addressing whether it’s permissible for one party to use another party’s trademark as a hashtag. The court held that, for several reasons, the 9th Circuit’s nominative fair use analysis did not cover one company’s use of another company’s trademarks as

Finding that President Trump’s Twitter feed constitutes a public forum, a federal judge in New York City held that it’s a First Amendment violation when the President or one of his assistants blocks a Twitter user from viewing or responding to one of the President’s tweets. As the New York Times points out, the decision

This post is a bit meta. It is about an event that I attended that was about an event that I didn’t attend.

Let me explain. I missed the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this year, but was fortunate to attend the Paley Center for Media’s (PCM) “Best of CES 2018” event last Thursday night. Every year, immediately following CES, PCM (a Morrison & Foerster client) convenes a panel of well-known tech industry commentators to discuss the most interesting technologies and technology trends that they discovered at CES. For attendees of PCM’s event, it feels like getting all of the benefits of CES without having to deal with the crowds and long lines (or even booking a flight to Las Vegas).

This year’s PCM panel members, all of whom had spent the prior week at CES, consisted of Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Dana Wollman of Engadget, Shelly Palmer of the Palmer Group and Advancit Capital’s Jon Miller, who served as the moderator.

Normally this is the sort of event that I would have live tweeted via our @MoFoSocMedia Twitter account—but I’m a slow typist and the panelists had way too many interesting insights per minute for me to keep up. On the other hand, it seems selfish not to share what I learned, so I’m writing this informal summary of the event—essentially, the best of the “Best of CES 2018.”
Continue Reading The Best of the Best of CES 2018

In order to comply with a new German law requiring social media sites to take down hate speech, Twitter and Facebook removed anti-Islamic social media posts authored by a German far-right political party.

The Obama administration’s screening of social media accounts of aspiring immigrants from majority-Muslim nations yielded little actionable intelligence, but the Trump

In an effort to deter hate groups from tweeting sanitized versions of their messages, Twitter has began considering account holders’ off platform behavior when the platform evaluates whether potentially harmful tweets should be removed and account holders should be suspended or permanently banned.

In connection with Congressional efforts to deter online sex trafficking by narrowing

After British police unsuccessfully tried to get the blogging platform WordPress.com to remove offensive and threatening posts, the deputy leader of the UK’s Labour Party vowed to urge changes that would make the country’s laws less tolerant of online abuse.

As bipartisan U.S. legislation to prevent the appearance of foreign-entity-funded political ads on social media

Recently, the “trolley problem,” a decades-old thought experiment in moral philosophy, has been enjoying a second career of sorts, appearing in nightmare visions of a future in which cars make life-and-death decisions for us. Among many driverless car experts, however, talk of trolleys is très gauche. They call the trolley problem sensationalist and irrelevant. But this attitude is unfortunate. Thanks to the arrival of autonomous vehicles, the trolley problem will be answered—that much is unavoidable. More importantly, though, that answer will profoundly reshape the way law is administered in America.

To understand the trolley problem, first consider this scenario: You are standing on a bridge. Underneath you, a railroad track divides into a main route and an alternative. On the main route, 50 people are tied to the rails. A trolley rushes under the bridge on the main route, hurtling towards the captives. Fortunately, there’s a lever on the bridge that, when pulled, will divert the trolley onto the alternative route. Unfortunately, the alternative route is not clear of captives, either — but only one person is tied to it, rather than 50. Do you pull the lever?
Continue Reading Yes, the Trolley IS a Problem