X v. Twitter

A case in NSW requiring Twitter to remove posts on a worldwide basis that contained confidential information.

X v Twitter Inc [2017] NSWSC 1300

Comment in this blog post.

Who owns the copyright and inventions produced by an AI machine?

These articles are some of the interesting articles dealing with ownership of copyright and patentable inventions produced by an AI machine or robot.

Machine learning to machine owning: Redefining the copyright ownership from the perspective of Australian, US, UK and EU Law. European Intellectual Property Review, (2018) 40 (11), pp. 722-728.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3293518

Artificial Intelligence, Copyright and Accountability in the 3A Era: The Human-like Authors Are Already Here: A New Model, 2017 M. L. R<. 659   https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=lr

When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law (March 1, 2017). Cardozo Law Review, http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RAVID.LIU_.39.6.5-1.pdf

Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Investors under U.S. Intellectual Property Law, 24 Rich. J.L. & Tech. i (2018), https://jolt.richmond.edu/files/2018/04/Pearlman_Recognizing-Artificial-Intelligence-AI-as-Authors-and-Inventors-Under-U.S.-Intellectual-Property-Law.pdf

Also, have a look at these videos about machine generated art:

• Harold Cohen – The Age of Intelligence Machines (1987) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPczQgCuOOc&feature=youtu.be
• Is it art? Portrait created by algorithm on sale at Christie’s – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeshFQZCD7E

When are AI systems legally liable

Here are some good readings if you are interested in the legal responsibility of AI systems:

Machines without Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 117 (2014)  http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/AI/Vladeck.pdf

Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies (May 30, 2015). Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 29, No. 2, Spring 2016.  http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v29/29HarvJLTech353.pdf

Servers and Waiters: What Matters in the Law of A.I. 21 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 167 (2018), https://law.stanford.edu/publications/servers-and-waiters-what-matters-in-the-law-of-a-i/

Accountable Algorithms, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 633 (2017) https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol165/iss3/3

Morality and AI Machines

An interesting site from MIT -- a platform for judging human insight into moral decisions made by machines:

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

How do you prepare for the AI revolution?

This is a great book to help you prepare for the AI revolution that is about to hit us:




Also, a similar book that is more general:

Another ACCC case regarding misleading consumer reviews

The ACCC has launched another case against ServiceSeeking regarding misleading online reviews of tradespeople.  See story here.

This is similar to the Meriton case, discussed in posts below, regarding misleading hotel reviews on TripAdvisor.

Copyright Act consultations

The Australian Dept of Communication and the Arts has sought submissions for reforms to the Copyright Act.  The submissions are now public: https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/copyright-modernisation-consultation

See also the Productivity Commission's final report on Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements.

Patentable Subject Matter

Rokt is fighting in Federal Court to have a patent application allowed.  The Commissioner of Patents is opposing the grant of the patent:  An invention that simply puts "a business method or scheme into a computer" is not patentable, the Commissioner of Patents told a court on the first day of a highly anticipated trial over a rejected software patent application by marketing tech startup Rokt.

The judge hearing the case is Justice Robertson.  The oral argument went for 3 days, and finished on 20 July 2018.  The judge is now writing a written decision.

See Australian Financial Review background story, and summary of Patent Office decision being appealed is here.

See blog post here.

Google may be liable for defamation for search engine results

Today, the High Court of Australia decided that Google must go to trial to determine whether Google is liable for defamation regarding its display of search engine results and also in respect of Google's autocomplete function.

See KWM article Google this: The High Court allows Google to be sued for defamation

See Sydney Morning Herald article

See HCA judgment Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25

.au Domain Names - Policy Review

auDA has constituted a policy review panel to review virtually all domain name policies in Australia, as well as to recommend a policy to implement direct registration in Australia.  I am chair of this policy review panel.

See https://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/2017-policy-review-panel/

I strongly urge you to review the issues papers and to provide feedback.

Direct registration will allow registration of domain names in Australia such as cyberspace.au.

There are other reforms being discussed.  See the Issues Paper that was published at the end of January.

Liability of Intermediaries for copyright infringement

At the end of last year, the Federal Court of Australia issued a judgment in against the Redbubble platform, in favour of Pokemon.

The judgment is here:  Pokémon Company International, Inc. v Redbubble Ltd [2017] FCA 154

This is an important copyright and consumer protection law case.  Redbubble recently appealed (and its seems that their appeal was lodged outside of the appeal window).

There is also a similar case pending, involving the Hell's Angels.

A good summary is located on the IP Whiteboard blog.

Canadian Update

This blog post has a good summary of relevant legal developments in Canada over the past year.

https://www.canadiantechlawblog.com/2018/01/17/technology-law-highlights-2017-year-in-review/