Helen W.

I’m interested in how AI is impacting law practice. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidance on how to determine inventorship when AI was involved in creating the invention. In 2022, in Thaler v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit held that “only a natural person can be an inventor, so AI cannot be.”  So, how can something developed by AI be patented? ·      The guidance reaffirms the Federal Circuit decision: Named inventors must be “natural persons.” A non-human, such an AI system, cannot be listed as inventor, even if it was “instrumental” in creating the invention. ·      A person named as inventor must make a “significant contribution” to any AI-assisted invention. ·      This is determined by existing inventorship law: The inventor must contribute in some significant way to the invention’s conception or reduction to practice. ·      USPTO gives an example: A person who merely 1) recognizes the need for a new design to solve a specific problem, 2) prompts an AI system to create a design, and 3) reviews the design outputted by the AI system, has not made a significant contribution. ·      On the other hand, a significant contribution “could be shown by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution from the AI system.” ·      These distinctions could be difficult to make in practice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in real world examples as AI develops and its use in creating inventions increases. ·      The USPTO guidance tells us that inventors using AI should be prepared to demonstrate, with supporting documentation, the specific things they did to contribute to the invention and how AI was used to assist. https://lnkd.in/g6gx_eTV #artificialintelligence #technology #AI

6

Sure there are gimmick's like creating output that answers questions in pirate-speak a la Jack Sparrow. So what is actually working with #GenAI?Check out the latest on @abovethelaw. What applications are showing promising results? #law #legalops #generalcounsel #knowledgemanagement #legaltech #AIROI #attorney #lawfirm https://lnkd.in/ewNvtnyU

19

1 Comment

Excited to speak as a panelist at CenterForce USA's conference on "Developing a Comprehensive Corporate AI Policy: Legal, Ethical, and Compliance Considerations." This Thursday, May 30 in Chicago, I'll be joining experts 👉 Michael Booden, JD, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, of HUB International 👉 Donna Haddad of IBM 👉 Julie Honor of Thompson Hine LLP and 👉 David Oberst of The Boler Company® for an insightful discussion of best practices for developing a sound corporate #AIPolicy! #AI #AIPolicy #LegalTech #Compliance #dataprotection #datasecurity #cybersecurity #riskmanagement

7

On August 31, the California legislature closed for the 2024 session. Here's what happened with the privacy and AI-related bills we've been tracking: Five of the six privacy-related bills passed the legislature: 1️⃣ Opt-Out Preference Signals (AB 3048) – Among other provisions, the bill prohibits a business from developing or maintaining a browser that does not include a setting that enables a consumer to send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts. 2️⃣ Kid's Privacy (AB 1949) – Amends the CCPA to provide that a business cannot collect, sell, or share the personal information of a child ages 13 to 17 without the child’s consent or, for children below 13, without a parent or guardian’s consent. 3️⃣ Neural Data / Personal Information & AI systems (SB 1223 & AB 1008) – Amend the CCPA to add neural data as an element of sensitive PI. Also amend the CCPA’s definition of PI to specify that PI can exist in various formats, including “artificial intelligence systems that are capable of outputting personal information.” 4️⃣ Recognition of Prior Opt-Outs in M&A Deals / Kid's Privacy (AB 1824) – Amends the CCPA to require acquiring businesses to honor prior opt-out requests. The bill also contains the kid’s privacy provisions in AB 1949. Four of the seven AI-related bills passed the legislature: 1️⃣ Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 1047) – The bill regulates the largest artificial intelligence models. It has been the subject of extensive controversy and is a potential candidate for a governor’s veto. 2️⃣ Generative AI Training Data Transparency (AB 2013) - Provides that developers of generative artificial intelligence systems or services must, prior to making their systems or services publicly available to Californians, post on their website documentation regarding the data used to train the system or service. 3️⃣ Definition of AI (AB 2885) - Amends California law to define artificial intelligence as “an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.” 4️⃣ California AI Transparency Act (SB 942) – Creates transparency obligations for persons that create, code, or otherwise produce generative artificial intelligence systems that have over one million monthly visitors or users and are publicly accessible within California’s geographic boundaries. 5️⃣ The three AI-related bills that did not pass the legislature were AB 2930 (algorithmic discrimination), AB 3211 (provenance, authenticity and watermarking standards), and AB 1791 (digital content provenance for social media platforms). All of the passed bills now head to the governor for consideration. Article co-authored by Owen Davis and Fred Sager.

164

3 Comments

Lots of interesting observations about how hallucinations/confabulations can be reduced by certain architectures in this article, but here's what I'm wondering about this morning: Suppose the models do end up solving these problems through what is, in effect, a division of labor: Models are specialized to answer queries within a defined subdomain. Do we then develop new models that are good at integrating answers across subdomains into a full solution that represents the best answer across domains? Even if we do, it seems like it will have to be humans that are playing that role in the near term. 1 for those who are good at context recognition and integrating perspectives across different domains — specialists in generalization. https://lnkd.in/g5RMaEx6

14

5 Comments

Why is this not bigger news? Besides many people likely not realizing that SUPER HERO and SUPER HEROES are registered trademarks, I'd think a petition to cancel 4 pretty well-known trademarks would be major news. I just stumbled on the trademark cancellation from a series of clicks on a wholly unrelated topic. I can't be the only one who is like 'WOW, this is kinda huge!'. Trademark cancellation proceedings are fascinating, but as I'm not a litigator they're outside my wheelhouse. Nonetheless, having skimmed over the 100 page filing it is a law school exam just waiting to happen. I'm sending out a signal to all my trademark colleagues to help shine some light on what probably should be bigger news. And my other legal colleagues, this may interest you too. I can imagine this will take quite some time to get through the TTAB, but I'm still a bit perplexed as to why very little has been written about this. Non-legal folks who are reading this - I'd love to hear your thoughts. It may not directly impact you, but I'm sure there are many who love comics, anime, or cosplay that would find this interesting. https://lnkd.in/gwDPJEPJ #trademark #trademarklaw #superheroes #superhero #legal #intellectualproperty #law #comics

9

8 Comments

“Companies involved in developing and training generative AI technologies face increasing IP challenges surrounding potential copyright infringement. However, the specifics of how copyright protections will be weighed and applied in this new context remain uncertain. Both technical aspects, such as the ways in which AI models access, interpret and retain protected data, as well as how the new uses rank under existing copyright exceptions and tests, will need careful legal and policy assessments.” https://lnkd.in/eeCBWPXt

1

INTERNET, IT & E-DISCOVERY BLOG:  Kaspersky Executives were Sanctioned, but old news going back to at least 2018! https://lnkd.in/gZnSp4Pr https://lnkd.in/g8_Vi_pu My January 2018 blog was titled “Cybersecurity Software: Kaspersky Lab filed a lawsuit against US government to enjoin federal ban!”  (https://lnkd.in/g32YYQiZ)  and now GovInfoSecurity.com is reporting that “Senior executives of Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky face new restrictions against doing business in Western countries following an announcement Friday morning by the U.S. Department of the Treasury that it sanctioned 12 of them.” The June 21, 2024 article entitled “US Sanctions 12 Kaspersky Executives” (https://lnkd.in/gCSQQhAq) included these comments: The sanctions do not include company CEO Eugene Kaspersky or the company itself - which the Biden administration on Thursday banned from doing business inside the United States and effectively from obtaining U.S.-made technology (see: Biden Administration Bans Kaspersky Antivirus Software). Today's sanctions encompass the Kaspersky Lab board of directors, the company's head of research and development, the heads of consumer and corporate businesses and other members of the executive team. The sanctions prevent blacklisted individuals from conducting business transactions with U.S. financial institutions or individuals. Treasury has ramped up sanctions pressure on Russia and Russian corporations as the Kremlin war of conquest against European neighbor Ukraine continues well into its second year. Earlier this month, the department prohibited American companies from offering IT support or cloud services for enterprise management software or applications used in design or manufacturing. No surprise about these sanctions! https://lnkd.in/gZnSp4Pr https://lnkd.in/g8_Vi_pu #kaspersky #cyber

4