If the hallmark of intelligence is problem solving, then it should be no surprise that artificial intelligence is being called on to solve complex problems that human intelligence alone cannot. Intellectual property laws exist to reward intelligence, creativity and problem solving; yet, as society adapts to a world immersed in artificial intelligence, the nation's intellectual property laws have yet to do the same. The Constitution seems to only contemplate human inventors when it says, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, "The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The Patent Act similarly seems to limit patents to humans when it says, at 35 U.S.C. § 100(f), "The term'inventor' means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention." Recognizing the need to adapt, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently issued notices seeking public comments on intellectual property protection related to artificial intelligence.

On 12 February 2019, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics1. After describing AI as "one of the strategic technologies of the 21st century"2, the European Parliament presented several recommendations to the Member States. This Resolution underlines the need to close the European gap with North America and Asia-Pacific, and promotes a coordinated approach at the European level "to be able to compete with the massive investments made by third countries, especially the US and China"3. Europe is well behind in private investments in AI, with €2.4 to €3.2 billion in 2016, as opposed to €6.5 to €9.7 billion in Asia-Pacific and €12.1 to €18.6 billion in North America. To address this challenge, the European Parliament develops a general approach based on a strategic regulatory environment for AI and encourages strong user protections.

Employed across industries, AI applications unlock smartphones using facial recognition, make driving decisions in autonomous vehicles, recommend entertainment options based on user preferences, assist the process of pharmaceutical development, judge the creditworthiness of potential homebuyers, and screen applicants for job interviews. AI automates, quickens, and improves data processing by finding patterns in the data, adapting to new data, and learning from experience. In theory, AI is objective--but in reality, AI systems are informed by human intelligence, which is of course far from perfect. Humans typically select the data used to train machine learning algorithms and create parameters for the machines to "learn" from new data over time. Even without discriminatory intent, the training data may reflect unconscious or historic bias. For example, if the training data shows that people of a certain gender or race have fulfilled certain criteria in the past, the algorithm may "learn" to select those individuals at the exclusion of others.

In the future, self-driving cars may become the norm on roads rather than the subject of promising reports from the tech industry's leading companies. What first seemed impossible has now progressed into the realm of believability. A similar evolution is happening in the legal industry and, while the rate of change may seem slower in law than in tech, the legal industry isn't far behind. Not long ago, law firms were the go-to providers of legal advice. Today, alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) like Deloitte are competing for the same clients as law firms--and winning.