This book discusses the necessity and perhaps urgency for the regulation of algorithms on which new technologies rely; technologies that have the potential to re-shape human societies. From commerce and farming to medical care and education, it is difficult to find any aspect of our lives that will not be affected by these emerging technologies. At the same time, artificial intelligence, deep learning, machine learning, cognitive computing, blockchain, virtual reality and augmented reality, belong to the fields most likely to affect law and, in particular, administrative law. The book examines universally applicable patterns in administrative decisions and judicial rulings. First, similarities and divergence in behavior among the different cases are identified by analyzing parameters ranging from geographical location and administrative decisions to judicial reasoning and legal basis. As it turns out, in several of the cases presented, sources of general law, such as competition or labor law, are invoked as a legal basis, due to the lack of current specialized legislation. This book also investigates the role and significance of national and indeed supranational regulatory bodies for advanced algorithms and considers ENISA, an EU agency that focuses on network and information security, as an interesting candidate for a European regulator of advanced algorithms. Lastly, it discusses the involvement of representative institutions in algorithmic regulation.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an increasingly valuable tool for diagnostics and drug development and is being used to make medical devices more adaptive. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Alice has made it difficult to patent inventions involving AI, seeing as the court's derived test for Section 101 of the Patent Act prevents abstract ideas from being patented. Interestingly enough, the court's decision failed to define what an abstract idea is, resulting in Section 101 often being applied unevenly. Nimalka Wickramasekera, an Intellectual Property litigator and Los Angeles partner, discusses in BioWorld's article "Supreme Court's Alice Decision Leaves Drug, Device Firms in AI Wonderland" that Section 101 proves to be a big hurdle for evolving technology, and AI specifically, "since people are still wrapping their heads around what they're claiming as the invention." She added that she "wouldn't be surprised if every patent application based on AI has had at least one rejection at the USPTO…To get around the court's prohibition on patents for abstract ideas, AI inventors must go beyond the algorithm and its application in computing devices."