All innovations build on those that came before. It is important to strike a balance between leveraging intellectual property protection for commercial benefit and stifling innovation in the process. And this is particularly relevant in the context of AI.
In the last week of 2023, the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The allegations in the complaint go to the core of how generative AI works and could shape the manner in which AI works going forward.
Generative AI has had a transformative impact on text and visual arts. While the AI’s ability to mimic artistic styles raises copyright concerns, does this constitutes “copying”? How will the definition of artistic talent evolve in the AI era?
The PM-EAC has recommended reforms to India’s patent system that primarily involved ramping up the work force (from about 800 to 2800 in a couple of years) and also introducing the utility system of patents as appropriate. I suggest we go a bit further and try and tweak the term of patent so that it is more appropriate for the invention being protected. So 20 years for pharma but no more than 5 for tech patents that in any event evolve to the next generation within that time.
Intellectual property boundaries are being streteched with companies claiming exclusive rights over specific colors and the extension of copyright terms. Its time for a re-evaluation of how intangible property is protected, given modern technologies and commercial realities.
There is a parallel between the use of barbed wire in the American prairies to establish property rights and the modern challenge of protecting intangible assets like intellectual property. Barbed wire allowed landowners to enforce title by fencing off land instead of branding ownership onto cattle. Decentralized technologies, such as blockchain, could transform the way intangible assets are protected, just like erecting fences around real estate, made it inherently resistant to trespass.
The South African patent office has granted a patent to an artificial intelligence program for an invention it has made. India granted a copyright to an AI application along similar lines. It is not clear how an artificial intelligence can exercise the IP granted by prosecuting a breach or negotiating commercial arrangements for its license. All these actions will have to be taken by humans on behalf of the AI in which case what is the point in calling the algorithm an inventor.
Technology enables us to use things we do not own but unless laws change from regulating based on ownership to regulating based on access despite everything our technology has made possible, innovation will continue to be stifled by legislation.
Biology’s evolution from empirical to engineered, driven by network computing and big data, is revolutionizing healthcare and drug discovery. Innovations like Patient Ping enhance coordinated care, while computational techniques streamline molecule identification, reducing trial and error. Advances in organ-on-a-chip and cell engineering enable more precise, individualized treatments, necessitating a reevaluation of regulatory and intellectual property frameworks.
Music’s evolution from live performances to digital streaming has been shaped by technology, expanding audience reach but often at the cost of artist revenue. With the advent of blockchain-based services like Musicoin, artists can now bypass traditional intermediaries, offering direct access to their music and potentially transforming the industry’s revenue model.
