Until we make legal rules computational, we cannot make law computable. A big challenge for data science in law is capturing the governing legal rules in a computable format. They state the conditions under which laws are triggered, they identify the issues to be proved in a legal proceeding, and they structure the proof process itself. Where do we find them? How do they constrain legal reasoning?

South Africa has become the first country to award a patent that names an artificial intelligence as its inventor and the AI's owner as the patent's owner. The patent was secured by University of Surrey professor Ryan Abbott and his team, who have been at odds with patent offices around the world for years over the need to recognise artificial intelligences as inventors. Abbott was representing Dr Stephen Thaler, creator of an artificial neural system named Dabus ('device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience'), which Thaler claims is the sole inventor of a food container that improves grip and heat transfer. Abbott and his team have filed patents listing Dabus as the inventor in more than ten jurisdictions since 2018, including in the UK, Europe and the US. The High Court in England and Wales last year sided with the UK Intellectual Property Office in refusing the applications, accepting that while Dabus created the inventions, it cannot be granted a patent on the grounds that it isn't a'natural person'.

New EU regulations on AI seek to ban mass and indiscriminate surveillance. For many, that is the good news. The'not so good' news is that the proposed prohibitions are considered by some as being too vague, with serious loopholes. Most recently, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), called for a ban on the use of AI for the automated recognition of human features in "publicly accessible spaces" as well as other uses that might lead to "unfair discrimination". Broadly speaking, this reflects the response to the EU's attempt to set a standard on how tech is regulated around the world.

Initially, when artificial intelligence came into existence, people thought that it would be very easy for them to come up with a replica of humans. A machine that could do all the human works felt simple to them. But when researchers practically accelerated the concept into action, they faced many issues and realized that streamlining technology in the real-world scenario was far complicated than how they predicted it to be. Although today's digital world has evolved drastically, the legal sector is a confined place where artificial intelligence's influence is still at the first stage. But post the pandemic, Legal AI adoption has surged like never before.

Europe is lagging behind not only the US and Japan, but also China in terms of technological innovation. The world's 15 largest digital firms are not European! It is beyond question that Europe produces bright minds with amazing ideas and an entrepreneurial mindset. The problem is very simple: European companies do not make it beyond the start-up phase and if they do, their business is believed to be better off out of Europe. Skype is one famous example that was bought up by Microsoft.

The government is wary of over-regulating new technologies such as artificial intelligence and will resist making ethics standards and codes mandatory for Australian businesses, Digital Economy minister Jane Hume says. In an address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), Senator Hume said the federal government would play an enabling role in accelerating the growth of artificial intelligence, along with setting standards in terms of ethics. "AI, along with other digital technologies, will play an increasingly important role in our economy and society over the next decade and beyond," Senator Hume said. "As we continue to vault forward in this space, government has a pivotal role to play as an enabler, and as a standard setter – particularly in regards to ethics. "The government has a significant responsibility … to ensure that AI, as an industry as well as a technology, has every chance to flourish, making sure we have the right settings, skills and expertise in place to ensure Australia is a global forerunner." The May budget allocated $124 million to artificial intelligence initiatives, including $50 million for a National AI Intelligence Centre within CSIRO and $34 million in grants for AI projects addressing national challenges. The Coalition has also unveiled AI ethics principles, with eight guiding principles "designed to help achieve safer and more reliable outcomes for all Australians". These principles and other standards around AI are currently entirely voluntary for Australian businesses, and Senator Hume said the government will avoid making them mandatory. "I obviously would rather have a voluntary code where industry has the input to what's in the code.

Employees of Activision Blizzard, the video game company that produces World of Warcraft and Call of Duty, staged a walkout Wednesday morning to call for better working conditions as the company faces allegations of a "frat boy" culture and severe harassment and discrimination against female workers. The California department of fair employment and housing (DFEH) filed a lawsuit against the company last week after a two-year investigation found widespread sexual harassment, retaliation and discrimination and that the video game maker "fostered a sexist culture" in which female employees earn less than males doing similar work. Just 20% of Activision Blizzard's 9,500 employees are women, and leadership at the company, one of the largest video game makers in the world, is largely white and male. Hundreds of workers gathered outside the company's headquarters in Irvine, California, Wednesday morning while others, unable to attend in person, took part in a virtual protest. A few hundred employees have gathered at the #ActiBlizzWalkout, exceeding the 100 or so organizers expected.

Globally recognized business builder, thought leader, author, former consulting partner and high-tech executive. Corporate legal departments have historically been resistant to automation and technology adoption, but the effects of the pandemic forced many to shift gears and pursue, or at least actively consider, more automation for legal activities. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been the cornerstone of this strategy, and mapping key investments to business outcomes remains a challenge. Similar to how email and the internet changed how legal departments functioned, AI is growing its impact. This cusp of a revolution will transform the practice of law.

Historically, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been highly selective in pursuing its own lawsuits. In California, individuals must lodge their complaint with the agency before filing a lawsuit against their employer. Typically the DFEH immediately grants them this right and reviews complaints for potential investigation, but it seldom pursues the cases itself. In 2019, the agency received 22,584 total complaints and filed four of its own cases. It filed 29 in 2018, following 20,822 complaints.

What are the issues of most concern for businesses in the EU Commission's recently published AI Act proposals? Our virtual gathering included representatives from the UK, Netherlands and USA, stretching across the automotive, energy, education, professional services and tech sectors. As with our first AI roundtable, the discussion ranged far and wide. A notable difficulty with the Commission's draft regulation on AI (as proposed, its "AI Act") is that it assumes that an end-to-end "provider" of an AI system can be identified and fixed with liability. The AI Act defines such service providers as the person or organisation that developed the system or had it developed.