Goto

Collaborating Authors

Opening Pandora's Box in an Age of Artificial Intelligence Innovation - IPWatchdog.com Patents & Patent Law

#artificialintelligence

"Experimentation is the least arrogant method of gaining knowledge. The experimenter humbly asks a question of nature." Artificial Intelligence (AI) is coming for your job. But is it coming for the job of your photographer or inventor? The driver-less cars, automated factories, and automated laboratories of today may give way to AI capable of thinking, writing, creating or even diagnosing disease.


Osborne Clarke – an International Legal Practice: Defending both creators and the public: will AI and the blockchain transform IP management?

#artificialintelligence

The test for what is'fair' is a matter of degree and the impression the court forms of the defendant's conduct. Under the US fair use exception, copying a copyright work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research does not infringe copyright. In determining whether the use of a work is fair, factors such as purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the portion of the copyrighted work used and the effect of the use on the market for that copyrighted work must be considered. While the US and UK approaches appear very similar, the key difference is that the list of purposes which may be fair use in the US is non-exhaustive; UK law excepts only a short, exhaustive list. US courts have accordingly been free to apply the exception in a wide range of circumstances as long as the use is fair.


This car company ripped off Land Rover. Here's why it might get away with it.

Washington Post - Technology News

The cars are basically indistinguishable unless you hone in on the exact stitching of the seats or the fine arrangement of the headlights. Even then, changes are so minuscule, it's nearly impossible to realize one of these vehicles costs 41,000, and the other just 21,700. British luxury carmaker Jaguar Land Rover and Chinese carmaker Jiangling will go to court this summer in China to settle their dispute over what exactly is fair game in the auto industry. Can Chinese companies continue to get away with "shanzhai" -- a Chinese term for prideful counterfeiting -- of car designs? It's a judicial battle that pits Western car companies against the burgeoning Chinese and East Asian market, and one that has captured the attention of economists, auto industry insiders and intellectual property experts.


Supreme Court rejects challenge to Google book-scanning project

PCWorld

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a copyright infringement case against Google for its now 12-year-old effort to scan books and allow people to search them online. The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected an appeal by the Authors Guild to overturn an October 2015 appeals court ruling finding that the massive Google books program falls under so-called fair use exemptions to copyright protections. Fair use allows limited reuse of copyright-protected works for criticism, parodies, education, and other purposes. Fair use also allows for people to transform the original content into a new type of work, and that transformation of the printed books was part of Google's argument in this case. The Authors Guild had argued that Google's "wholesale" copying of copyright-protected books would generate profits for the company at the expense of authors.


Oracle takes Java copyright dispute with Google to appeals court

PCWorld

Oracle has taken its bid for up to US$9 billion in damages to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after a judge in a federal court in California recently struck down its bid for a retrial in a copyright infringement suit against Google over the use of Java code in the Android operating system. A jury had cleared Google of copyright infringement in May this year, upholding the company's stand that its use of 37 Java APIs (application programming interfaces) in the Android mobile operating system constituted "fair use" under the Copyright Act, which allows copying of creative works under certain circumstances. Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final judgment in favor of Google on June 8. Oracle had subsequently asked the district court for a new trial, which would be the third in this dispute. The company claimed, among other grounds, that Google had concealed information during discovery on its plans to integrate Android apps with the Chrome OS running on desktops and laptops, thus extending the scope of the infringement beyond smartphones and tablets.