Experts say 23% of lawyers' work can be automated. Law schools are trying to stay ahead of the curve.
See https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/02/06/technology-is-changing-the-legal-profession-and-law-schools.html
A blog relating to Internet legal issues by Professor John Swinson, University of Queensland
Adsense HTML
Domain Name Study - Which Domain Names don't get renewed
Research uncovered some interesting results, such as:
https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2019/12/05/domain-study
· Only 29.79% of all domains are renewed after one year
· New GTLDs (like .XYZ) have far higher churn rates than .COM, .NET, .ORG etc
https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2019/12/05/domain-study
Jurisdiction over Google
In Canada, on June 13, 2014, a Canadian court issued an injunction requiring Google to remove certain websites from its internet search results worldwide. Those websites were operating in violation of previous court orders and were being used to market a product that the plaintiffs say was developed through theft of their trade secrets. The injunction granted was on a worldwide basis.
The injunction was upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, but Google then obtained an order from a California court making it unenforceable in the United States. Google now applies to set aside or vary the injunction. Google was unsuccessful.
The injunction was upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, but Google then obtained an order from a California court making it unenforceable in the United States. Google now applies to set aside or vary the injunction. Google was unsuccessful.
See
Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2018 BCSC 610
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0610.htm
Comments in this Canadian Blog
Comments in this Canadian Blog
X v. Twitter
A case in NSW requiring Twitter to remove posts on a worldwide basis that contained confidential information.
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/
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:
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.
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How should damages be assessed for privacy and cybersecurity breaches
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
-
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
-
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
-
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...