The first exclusively online law review.

Tag: Law and Technology

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

Google’s Geofencing Stance: an Ode to Apple in 2016

By Michael Mellon

 

 

In 2016 Apple faced off with the federal government, who had obtained an order to compel Apple to create software which would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to unlock a cellphone used by a suspected terrorist.[1]  The software was needed because Apple had recently redesigned its operating system, making it impossible for anyone to access information stored on one of their devices.[2]  The government maintained that the All Writs Act justified the compulsion because it “empower[s] judges to order that something be done, even if the legislative body (here, Congress) hasn’t officially said that it should be.”[3]  It further relied on a test established in United States v. New York Telephone Co. concerning the same.[4]  Apple was prepared to challenge this, but the issue became moot when the United States Attorney’s Office indicated it had found another means of entry into the phone.[5]  This situation may very well have been the inspiration for Google’s recent stance related to mobile devices.

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

Can AI-Generated Output Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?

By Audrey Zhang Yang

Introduction

AI-generated output represents a groundbreaking integration of technology and creativity that increasingly challenges established norms in the legal world. Inevitably, it raises the question on whether law and policy on intellectual property protection should evolve and adapt to recognize this changing innovation trend. The Progress Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science…by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writing.”[i] Pursuant to this authorization, the Copyright Act extends copyright protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[ii] The Copyright Act neither defined “authorship” not “works of authorship.”[iii] Traditionally, courts assigns authorship to individuals who create original works. However, determining authorship is more challenging in the case of artificial intelligence (AI). Some believe that since AI systems are tools programmed by humans, the programmers are entitled to authorship rights.[iv] Also, when someone instructs AI to solve a problem, that person might qualify as an investor if she formulates a problem in a manner that requires inventive skill.[v] However, laws on intellectual property, patent, and copyright were not originally passed with AI in mind. Therefore, there is no law specifically addressing AI-generated invention in any jurisdiction.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén