intellectual property

3 Ways Biden Can Be Friendly With China

There’s no question that the Biden Administration has come into power at a pivotal moment in history. The challenges it faces, both domestic and international, run the gamut. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its relationship with China.

America’s relationship with China has ebbed and flowed over the years, but no matter who sits in the White House, two things remain true. The first is that America needs China. The second is China’s slow and steady ascendancy to the status of an economic superpower.

Complicating matters further is the seemingly asymmetrical COVID recovery Biden inherited from his incompetent predecessor. At least on the surface, China has mostly stamped out the virus and is using its head start to further its goal of achieving global financial supremacy.

Long-simmering tensions between the U.S. and China have locked the two countries into a hellish paradigm of their own making. The belief that long-term economic success is a zero-sum game is as false as it is destructive.

No amount of protectionism will force the Chinese genie back into the bottle. China will reach economic parity with the U.S., whether Americans like it or not.

President Biden has the chance to guide the world into a new, two-pole economic dynamic where China and America stand side-by-side as economic equals, working in tandem to increase prosperity across the globe.

Setting The Stage

Before we explore the three things President Biden can do to work towards a brighter global economic future, we must first understand the near-term dynamics shaping policy in the U.S. and China.

In the U.S., the Biden Administration will likely pursue a gentle relaxation of the trade tensions with China so that prices for U.S. consumers will fall while access for American exports increases.

On the other hand, China will likely continue to fortify its domestic market and attempt to break free of U.S. dominance in high tech. The concept of Dual Circulation, a significant focus of President Xi Jinping, will seek to drive internal consumption while keeping the country open to foreigners.

I consider myself both a global citizen and a bridge between East and West. It is my firm belief that Cold War-era tactics and zero-sum thinking will lead us down the path of destruction. Instead, it’s time for us to evolve as a global society and find a sustainable long-term balance.

Here’s how I think President Biden can help move us in this direction.

#1 Support the next wave of innovation, including A.I. and green tech, and cooperate with China to define standards.

When it comes to maintaining or advancing a country’s economic position in the world, innovation, not protectionism, reigns supreme. Trade wars and political posturing are reactive, not proactive.

The economy of the future will be defined by still-emerging fields like artificial intelligence and green tech. The U.S. still stands out as the center for innovation and advancement. America is capable of amazing things when its people pull together and work toward a common goal.

The Biden Administration should put particular focus on investing in and supporting so-called “Moonshot” initiatives while working hand-in-hand with China to develop global standards in potentially dangerous fields like A.I.

#2 Continue to defend American intellectual property rights aggressively.

There is no question that China has benefited from leveraging the West’s innovations and advancements, sometimes without permission. This is an uncomfortable truth that we must embrace. The massive leaps forward that China has made over the past 70 years can, at least in part, be traced back to a fluid stance on intellectual property rights.

The simple fact of the matter is that until there is trust between the two countries in this arena, it will be nearly impossible for their relationships to improve.

China’s leadership is nothing if not pragmatic. They did what they needed to get to where they are today. They will continue to appropriate intellectual property until stopped. Doing so will not only protect American interests but will also help to drive innovation inside of China.

The results will, of course, take time to manifest. However, mutual respect for intellectual property rights is critical to long-term cooperation and mutual growth.

#3: Pull back on the rhetoric and brinkmanship that characterized the Trump administration.

For all of his crass incompetence, Donald Trump wasn’t always wrong when it came to China. When pushed to characterize my thoughts on the matter, I think back to a quote from the 1998 film, “The Big Lebowski.” When pushed by his very Trump-like friend’s question of “Am I wrong?”, The Dude responds, “No, you’re not wrong Walter. You’re just an asshole.”

Trump’s rhetoric and brinkmanship clouded any truth that he may have been trying to convey. President Biden, however, is a long-time statesman and all-around class act. I believe he will be able to take a firm position with China while demonstrating respect and working toward a better future.

China and America should not be enemies. To think that this is inevitable is to relegate yourself to failed twentieth century thinking. Both countries have the unique chance to thrive in a world where economic power is more evenly distributed, but only if they begin to move beyond petty squabbles and Cold War-era machinations.

Today, the ball is in President Biden’s court. America once again has a chance to grow, evolve, and lead on the global scene. I, for one, will do everything I can to help rebuild the bridge between East and West and shepherd the world toward a brighter and more prosperous future.

Universal Music Group Calls for AI Music Copyright Protection

The rise of AI-generated music has sparked concerns over copyright infringement, with Universal Music Group (UMG) calling on streaming services to block AI services from harvesting melodies and lyrics from copyrighted songs. According to a report from the Financial Times on April 13, UMG has been sending requests to take down AI-generated songs “left and right,” as they have been popping up on streaming services with increased frequency.

AI bots have had access to music catalogs on streaming platforms, which developers have used to train the technology. However, UMG has become “increasingly concerned” about AI bots using intellectual property to produce music identical to actual artists. A source close to the situation said that this next generation of technology currently emerging poses “significant issues.”

Until now, developers have used music catalogs on streaming platforms to train AI models. However, this practice could be problematic because AI-generated music could potentially infringe on the intellectual property rights of the original artists. For instance, AI could compose a song that resembles Taylor Swift’s lyrics, but with vocals and themes of other popular artists like Bruno Mars and Harry Styles. The output would be due to the fact that the AI has been trained on those artists’ intellectual property.

One Twitter user posted an example of an AI-generated song that features an AI-version of the famous rapper Jay-Z, which is almost indistinguishable from the real Jay-Z. The user said that as a fan of Jay-Z, he “enjoyed” the track but doesn’t know if he should feel “good or ashamed” for liking AI-generated music.

The issue could only be the beginning of what could be in store for the music industry in its fight against AI technology taking advantage of intellectual property rights. Along with AI-generated music on Twitter and popular streaming platforms, entire YouTube pages are popping up, remaking well-known music via AI technology.

In response to the issue, UMG has taken an artist-first stance, writing in emails to the streaming services that “we will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights and those of our artists.” The same Twitter user also tweeted a clip of an AI model of Kanye West singing along to the tracks of rapper Drake’s song “Hold On.” Examples like this touch on the exact fears UMG is currently raising about streaming services.

Google has also announced its own machine-learning music apparatus called MusicLM, which will be able to generate “high-fidelity music from text descriptions.” The application has yet to be released; however, Google has released an entire page on GitHub of sample music generated with insights about how it was generated.

In conclusion, the emergence of AI-generated music has raised concerns over copyright infringement and intellectual property rights in the music industry. As AI technology continues to advance, it will be increasingly important to protect the rights of artists and ensure that their work is not being replicated without their consent.

UK Supreme Court Denies AI's Claim to Inventorship in Landmark Case

In a decision that may shape the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and patent law, the UK Supreme Court has ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a landmark case concerning the role of AI in inventing. Dr. Thaler, who created the AI system DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), sought to have DABUS recognized as the inventor of two patents – a food container and a light beacon.

Central to this case was the interpretation of the Patents Act of 1977. The act requires that an “actual deviser” of an invention, identified as a “person,” be named as the inventor in patent applications. This definition became the crux of the debate, as Dr. Thaler asserted that his AI system was the actual deviser of the inventions in question.

The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that under the current law, an inventor must be a natural person. This decision was grounded in the legislative context of the Patents Act, which did not envisage AI systems as potential inventors at the time of its drafting. The court also addressed the issue of whether Dr. Thaler could claim the patents by owning DABUS, ultimately dismissing this notion. They reasoned that since DABUS is not a person, it cannot hold or transfer patent rights, and Dr. Thaler, admitting he was not the inventor, could not claim these rights.

Dr. Thaler’s argument based on the doctrine of accession, which typically applies to tangible property, was also rejected by the court. They held that since an invention is intangible, this principle could not be applied in this context. Consequently, the court supported the earlier decision to treat Dr. Thaler’s applications as withdrawn, as he failed to meet the Patents Act’s requirements.

This judgment echoes the traditional interpretation of inventorship and entitlement laws, yet it acknowledges the growing complexity brought about by AI’s role in creative processes. The court did not delve into the factual assertions of DABUS’s autonomous invention capabilities, leaving open questions about AI’s role in future inventive processes. Interestingly, courts in Australia and South Africa have taken different stances, recognizing AI as capable of being named as an inventor. This disparity underscores the evolving and unsettled nature of AI’s legal status in intellectual property realms globally.

Anthropic's Updated Terms of Service: Enhanced Copyright Protection for AI Outputs

Anthropic, a leading company in generative artificial intelligence, has recently updated its commercial terms of service, effective January 1, 2024, to address important concerns regarding intellectual property and data usage. This update is particularly significant for users of Anthropic’s Claude API, which is also available through Amazon’s generative AI development suite, Bedrock.

Under the new terms, Anthropic has taken a strong stance to protect its customers from copyright infringement claims related to the authorized use of their services. The company commits to indemnify its enterprise Claude API customers from such claims, promising to defend against allegations that a customer’s paid use of Anthropic’s services, including data used to train their models, violates third-party intellectual property rights such as patents, trade secrets, trademarks, or copyrights.

This move places Anthropic alongside other major generative AI providers like Microsoft, Adobe, Shutterstock, OpenAI, IBM, and Google, who have also implemented similar intellectual property protection measures for their generative AI outputs. These protections, however, come with certain limitations. For instance, the indemnification does not cover claims related to customer prompts or uses of the service that violate the terms of use, arise from willful misconduct or violations of law, modifications made by the customer to the services or outputs, or the combination of services or outputs with technology not provided by Anthropic. Additionally, certain patent or trademark-related violations are also excluded from this protection.

Furthermore, it’s important for businesses considering the use of generative AI tools to thoroughly analyze the terms and conditions of the provider, taking into account not only legal factors but also non-legal considerations like pricing and technical capabilities. This comprehensive review should include an examination of the intellectual property protection provisions and any relevant exclusions offered by the provider, especially for paid or enterprise customers. Such diligence is crucial in the current landscape where copyright and privacy lawsuits against generative AI providers, concerning the scraping of copyrighted works for training AI models, are still ongoing. These legal battles present unresolved intellectual property issues, making the protections offered by companies like Anthropic a welcome addition for their customers. However, it’s vital for customers to fully understand and consider these terms and indemnification provisions in the context of their specific or potential uses.

Legal actions such as those initiated by Universal Music Group against Anthropic in October 2023, and the lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft by author Julian Sancton, highlight the complexities and evolving nature of copyright law in the age of artificial intelligence. These cases underscore the importance of AI companies proactively addressing copyright concerns and ensuring they have robust protections in place for their customers. Anthropic’s recent update to its terms of service is a step towards greater clarity and security in this rapidly advancing field.

OpenAI Dismisses NYT Copyright Lawsuit as Baseless Amid Rising Legal Challenges

OpenAI, a leading artificial intelligence research lab, has dismissed a copyright lawsuit filed by The New York Times (NYT) as “without merit.” The lawsuit, which was brought to light by the NYT, accuses OpenAI of using the newspaper’s content for training its AI chatbots, such as GPT-4 and DALL-E 3, without authorization. This move by the NYT represents a significant challenge in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI and copyright law.

In December 2023, the NYT filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that the companies used the Times’ copyrighted content to train their generative AI models. The suit, which has become a major talking point in the AI community, claims that this action was taken without permission or payment, potentially causing billions of dollars in damages to the NYT.

OpenAI, however, has countered these allegations. In a public response, OpenAI reiterated its stance that training AI models using publicly available data, including articles from the NYT, falls under fair use. The company argues that this approach is essential for innovation and competitiveness in the U.S. OpenAI also addressed the issue of “regurgitation,” where AI models output training data verbatim, stating that this is less likely with data from a single source and that it’s the users’ responsibility to avoid intentional misuse of the models.

Interestingly, OpenAI has been in constructive discussions with the NYT about forming a partnership. These talks were progressing well until the lawsuit was filed, which came as a surprise to OpenAI. The company believes that this legal action is not representative of the typical use or intent of its AI models and sees this as an opportunity to clarify its business practices and technology development.

The NYT lawsuit is part of a growing trend where content creators, including artists and journalists, are challenging the use of their work in training AI systems. Other lawsuits have been filed against OpenAI and similar companies, accusing them of copyright infringement. This legal pushback signifies a broader concern over the ethical and legal implications of AI in the creative and media industries.

Notably, some news organizations have chosen a different path, forming licensing agreements with AI companies. The Associated Press and Axel Springer, for example, have entered into deals with OpenAI, indicating a potential collaborative approach to address these challenges. However, these agreements are often for relatively small sums, especially considering the revenues of AI companies like OpenAI.

The lawsuit and the issues it raises about AI and copyright law are set to be a pivotal moment in defining the boundaries and responsibilities of AI developers and content creators. As the case unfolds, it will undoubtedly have significant implications for the future of AI, journalism, and intellectual property rights.

Pokemon Company Investigates Palworld for Alleged Plagiarism Amidst Success

The Pokémon Company has launched an investigation into Palworld, a survival game by Pocket Pair, Inc., following allegations of plagiarism. This move comes as a surprise to many, given the game’s extraordinary commercial success, having sold eight million copies, eclipsing even Pokémon Legends: Arceus in sales.

The controversy began with accusations from various quarters about Palworld’s striking resemblance to the Pokémon series. In response, The Pokémon Company released a statement expressing concerns over the unauthorized use of their intellectual property in Palworld. They highlighted that no permission was granted for such use and emphasized their dedication to protecting the Pokémon brand and its world. The nature of the investigation and the potential consequences remain unclear, but the implications for Palworld’s future could be significant.

Palworld, despite these allegations, continues to thrive. The game offers a unique blend of survival mechanics and creature collecting, which has resonated with a large audience. The current success of Palworld raises questions about how these plagiarism accusations will impact its future developments and the broader gaming industry.

In light of these events, Pocket Pair, Inc. has announced plans to continue enhancing Palworld’s gameplay experience. Significant updates, including cross-play and PvP features, are in the pipeline. These updates aim to enrich the gaming experience and sustain the game’s momentum in the market.

As the investigation by The Pokémon Company unfolds, the gaming community is keenly observing the developments. The outcome of this probe could set a precedent in the industry regarding intellectual property rights and their enforcement. The situation also highlights the fine line between inspiration and infringement in the creative process of game development.

The Pokémon Company’s decision to investigate reflects their commitment to safeguarding their intellectual assets, a stance that could influence how other companies protect their creations in the future.

UK Government Explores IP Challenges in Emergent Metaverse Ecosystems

The UK Intellectual Property Office has released an insightful research report addressing the multifaceted concerns and recommendations regarding intellectual property (IP) within the evolving Metaverse(s). The report, finalized in February 2023, stands as a testament to the government’s proactive stance in understanding and guiding the development of this nascent digital ecosystem.

The Metaverse, while still lacking a universally accepted definition, is recognized as a rapidly growing confluence of digital realities that poses unique challenges to current IP frameworks. The report identifies three potential models for the Metaverse: decentralized, centralized, and hybrid, with the hybrid model expected to be the most viable due to historical precedents and geopolitical trends.

The research underscores a significant gap in the literature concerning the discussion of IP within the Metaverse. Despite the burgeoning discourse on technological standards and ethics, few sources adequately tackle the IP questions that arise within this complex matrix of products and services. The Metaverse’s persistent, infinite, and ever-evolving nature necessitates a robust IP framework that can adapt to this dynamic environment.

The authors of the report, experts in the field, emphasize that while the Metaverse ignites the imagination and attracts substantial investment, there is an urgent need to anticipate specific IP issues. The lack of consensus on what the Metaverse entails complicates efforts to predict and address these challenges.

Businesses and users perceive and experience IP differently within the Metaverse. While businesses can resort to contracts and technology-based solutions to bridge any gaps in the current IP regime, users may find themselves at a disadvantage. This disparity highlights the importance of a comprehensive and equitable IP system.

The report’s findings and recommendations are pivotal for stakeholders, including investors, creators, and policymakers, as they navigate the intricate IP landscape of the Metaverse. It calls for ongoing research, dialogue, and potentially reform to ensure that the IP framework can sustain the growth and diversity of the Metaverse while protecting the rights and interests of all parties involved.

The UK Intellectual Property Office’s initiative to commission and publish this report demonstrates a commitment to fostering an environment where innovation can thrive in harmony with IP rights. As the Metaverse continues to develop, such insights will be critical in shaping the policies and regulations that will govern this new digital frontier.