Search the archive.

5. Discussion Since the introduction of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s, journalism innovation has been a focal focus for businesses and academics. The media sector is suffering a huge crisis, particularly since 2008, in which corporations are attempting to redefine a viable economic model, seeking for the sustainability of an activity formerly supported mostly by advertising. Numerous researchers have emphasized the need of optimizing all economic resources for this business, and automated technologies may be "the key to the survivability of news media in the digital age" [26]. In this perspective, we must frame the debate on the function of intellectual property legislation in the context of automated journalistic outputs. Companies must monetize content, and the development of artificial intelligence systems to aid journalistic work in collecting data, expanding news stories, and spreading them—and even more effectively commercializing them—can aid in this endeavor. As we have shown, artificial intelligence systems need human participation in the majority of situations, and this leaves a personality hint that leads to the conclusion that the output has the uniqueness required for copyright law to be applied. On the contrary, investment should be boosted. The most developed proposal to date, the Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress on Copyright in artificially generated works, after consulting with numerous national groups from around the world, concludes that the majority of them "consider that the investor (natural or legal person) should be the original owner of the artificially generated works [23]." (p. 16). "New profiles are emerging in news reporting: journalists are adding new skills to their traditional ones, and one of them, in regards to automated news, is to be a designer, programmer, supervisor, or editor of news items created with the aid of software [12] (p. 284); therefore, it is more important than ever to adapt skills and training [27].

The historically evolved legal status of the journalist as an author is now again under jeopardy. An individual approach to intellectual property (ultimately, an authors' rights approach) is increasingly difficult to defend, and the collective, and even derivative works, now play the key role in copyright law. In the most optimistic viewpoints, this is good news for journalists, as artificial intelligence systems-assisted production may free human journalists from heavy tasks and reserve them for a higher level of coverage [21] (p. 5,6) (reports and features, essentially) with a higher added value and, in keeping with the old Berne Convention literal, a more "literary" approach. In any event, there are a variety of methods to alternatively assign authorship or associated rights to an actual person or a corporation, and AIS-assisted news should always be attributed to someone. Maintaining the concept of authorship is crucial in this sense. It is probably more difficult to preserve moral rights when software and a journalist share the burden of producing a news story, and that burden should be balanced in some way. However, we agree with the conclusion of Osha et al, 2019, that economic rights "should not differ between artificially-generated works and regular works" [23]. (p. 10). For the aforementioned reasons, it is quite difficult to attribute moral rights to the inventors and designers of artificial intelligence systems, and it is even more difficult to attribute them to journalists who contribute to the production of artificial intelligence system-aided news in countries such as the United Kingdom. Article 79 of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act provides that the moral right "does not apply to computer programs [or] computer-generated works" or "in connection to the publishing in a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical." Even though it may seem to be a very limited regulation, it gives insight into how things may be handled in relation to the subject of this article.

The sui generis database right is also viewed as akin to publisher’s right. Publishers are neither authors nor related rights owners, but they organize the supply of information via their creative role in designing the flow of information and their financial investments. In 2000, Clark noted that the sui generis right in the Database Directive is as near as publishers were ever likely to get to a publisher’s right.39 In 2019, the neighboring right for press publishers was introduced in the Digital Single Market Directive.40 Hugenholtz observes that the new neighboring right seems to have its justification in the investment in content aggregation, quite similar to the sui generis database right.41 However, same as the previous neighboring rights, the publisher’s right lacks a threshold test, which, on the one hand, will lead to overprotection and legal uncertainty and, on the other hand, again demonstrates that the EU database right appears to be more justified.

Because of this similarity between sui generis right and neighboring rights, the database sui generis right has been transposed as a special neighboring right in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. In Belgium and Netherlands, the right has been transposed by a special act, illustrating its sui generis status.4

When the creation of a work is only the result of artificial intelligence systems, with no human intervention at all, which is thought to be only possible in randomly created outputs, this may be possible in music but hardly in news reporting, since it may result in a lack of sense. Anyway, there are some cases, for instance the Australian Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd, which declare that a work not produced by a human cannot be protected by copyright (Gadamez, 2017). Some other cases, for instance in the European jurisdiction, insist in the decisive intervention of human beings in the final result for a work to be considered copyrightable: the Court of Justice of the European Union delat with that question in C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer/Standard Verlags [2011], C-604/10 Football Dataco/Yahoo! [2012] [9] (p. 321).

The main point is, then, originality, and how to define it. In the mentioned European cases, it is required that the work is “the author’s own intellectual creation”, so in some way it must be (concurrently with a Civil Law, authors’ right legal tradition) an oeuvre de l’esprit: some personal touch must be found in the work. Even if artificial intelligence systems can show some creativity, meaning that they can generate works using data, patterns and algorithms, it is far more difficult to find some originality in them. Once again, the CJUE has insisted on this point, e.g., in C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, declaring that it is essential to find some elements of personality in a work to be protected under copyright law. Whenever a human intervention is a sine qua non condition to produce the work, such a personality characteristic can be detected. Human intervention is always needed: software cannot create software, so, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), there are only two ways to face this problem: to deny copyright protection to works created exclusively by computers or to attribute it to the creator of the program. There is a third way in the case of news: to attribute it to the corporate entity responsible for the collective work in which this artificial intelligence systems-aided work is inserted. In this case, and the Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress con Copyright in artificially generated works insists on it, a related, neighboring, ancillary or sui generis right is needed for publishers.

4. Results The cross-examination of the aforementioned cases, which covers the most common practices of artificial intelligence systems-aided journalism to this point, their classification considering the legal axis of authorship (and originality) and typology of work, and the phase of journalistic work (gathering, production and dissemination) could help us to determine to what extent copyright law can cover these new products.

First of all, it is to be noted that all of them are produced due to the initiative and investment of a company, a corporate entity which is typically considered the one under whose coordination a collective work is made. This is to say that media companies as corporate entities are the producers of a collective work, not the authors of it. This is a characteristic more relevant in Civil Law countries than in the Common Law legal tradition, in which an entrepreneurial point of view is more explicit than in the most authorial, based on the creativity of individuals, approach of Civil Law countries. This, which was in the origin of copyright and authors’ rights legal systems, has been modulated over time, and the importance of producers is evident in the case of, e.g., the audiovisual work. There are some movements to extend this consideration to the producers of multimedia works. One of those movements is the aforementioned lobbying activity of the major newspaper companies in Europe or the European Union to enact an ancillary exploitation right for press publishers, materialized in Article 15 of the Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, 2019, to be implemented by state members (as of mid-2020, the only one to do so was France). Article 15 is intended to protect press publications “concerning online uses”, for two years after publication. The duration of rights is notably shorter than the protection given to personal creations (all the authors’ life term plus 70 years after his or her death), but is perfectly suitable for automated creations. There is an advantage in such artificial intelligence systems-aided works, since, when an author’s name is not mentioned, no one has to receive “an appropriate share of the revenues”. The Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress on Copyright in artificially generated work, one of the most developed documents on this area, agrees with this conception, and considers that “the term should be shorter than for the other copyrightable works” [23] (p. 19). This is an important thing to be remarked, since non-authored works may enter the public domain much earlier than authored ones. Madeleine de Cock Buning made an interesting reflection on this: “Without any form of intellectual property protection, these works can be used, reproduced, changed and distributed to the benefit of all. One can argue in favor of this option where Artificial Intelligence Systems creation is a positive consequence of Artificial Intelligence to the benefit of society as a whole” [8].

The essential issue is thus originality and how to define it. In the aforementioned European instances, it is needed that the work be "the author's own intellectual invention," meaning that (concurrently with a Civil Law, authors' right legal tradition) the work must in some manner be an oeuvre de l'esprit: it must include a personal touch. Even though artificial intelligence systems are creative, in the sense that they can produce works utilizing data, patterns, and algorithms, it is far more challenging to detect originality in their work. In C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblad Forening, for example, the CJUE reiterated this issue, stating that a work must have certain personal characteristics in order to be protected by copyright law. Such a personality trait may be identified whenever human involvement is a necessary requirement for the production of the work. Always, human involvement is required: According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), there are only two solutions to this problem: denying copyright protection to purely computer-created works or attributing the work to the author of the program. In the case of news, there is a third option: attributing it to the corporate body accountable for the collective labor into which this artificial intelligence systems assisted work is incorporated. In this instance, and as per the Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress on Copyright in automatically produced works, publishers need a related, adjacent, auxiliary, or sui generis right.

According to our knowledge, this has not yet occurred, but it is not inconceivable that artificial intelligence systems-assisted news, which may use third-party data, could infringe copyright if the source and author of the original work from which the derivative work is derived are not properly cited, and the corporation that publishes it could be sued for infringement. Such a case would assist clarify perspectives, and it was noted, but not elaborated upon, in the Resolution issued by the AIPPI World Congress in September 2019. It is possible, we should add, that in some cases such practices could be considered under the quotation exception — or fair use in the Common Law countries — but it must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with no need to create new exceptions [23] (p. 11), particularly in legal areas such as the European Union, where a closed list of exceptions must be applied. In nations that use fair usage or fair dealing, a case-by-case approach will be required.

During the second panel, three of the witnesses—Professor Adam Mossoff of the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Mark Deem of Lightstone Ventures; and former USPTO Director David Kappos—urged the Subcommittee to pass PERA swiftly, while David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) said there are too many concerns with the language and too many questions around whether legislative changes are necessary to warrant passage.

Jones cited statistics that he claims show Section 101 law is more predictable than other areas of patent law based on USPTO and court decisions, and said that HTIA is concerned PERA would make almost any human activity patent eligible. He suggested a more targeted approach that would involve identifying particular problem areas and creating sui generis protection or adopting a standard that’s “explicitly tethered to an advance in technology.”

While HTIA has strong concerns about PERA as currently drafted, we remain committed to the effort to address legitimate concerns with respect to patent eligibility. For years, HTIA has invested substantial time and resources into engagement on this issue, and we will happily continue to engage with interested members of Congress and stakeholders on all sides of this debate in the hopes of finding common ground. Although we do not believe that there currently is significant empirical evidence to support the dramatic changes proposed by PERA, we also acknowledge that there are concerns expressed by other stakeholders that appear to have some legitimacy and likely warrant further consideration.

That being said, HTIA firmly believes that the fundamental goal of the U.S. patent system is—and must remain—the promotion of technological advancement. Accordingly, HTIA remains ardently opposed to any legislative reform that would expand patent eligibility to encompass non-technological ideas and processes. As discussed above, there is every reason to believe that such an expansion would substantially weaken incentives to invest in technological research and development, while enriching the (mostly foreign) owners of U.S. patents at the expense of American consumers and businesses. With that preface (and associated caveats), I continue to believe that there are at least two potential paths forward that would present vastly less risk of harm from unintended consequences and that should attract less opposition from stakeholders as a whole.

However, the EU sui generis design regime still provides an outstanding approach to design legal protection and has also helped achieve an important goal that the EU legislators were facing, particularly harmonization of the national design laws and facilitating the free circulation of goods that is essential for the internal market. As noted by Derclaye, the EU design law is the most harmonized regional design regime in the world, which is an amazing achievement of the EU legislators given that some EU countries historically paid a lot of attention to intellectual property protection of designs (France, Italy) and some EU countries had no design laws at all (Greece).3

The 2020 Evaluation of EU Legislation on Design Protection stressed that the main goals of the sui generis design rights in the EU were to promote “a single market and an undistorted competition regime for products embodying designs”. The conducted studies have shown that the introduced sui generis regime has been broadly successful in reaching these goals. According to the evaluation, the sui generis rights provide “access to simple and affordable design protection by making it significantly easier and less costly to obtain a registered design right that is valid across the whole EU”. The evaluation concludes that “it is likely that without EU legislation on design protection, big differences between national laws would have remained, with the result that the internal market for goods embodying designs would remain fragmented and distorted”. At the same time, the evaluation also reported a number of weak points of the design regime, namely only partial harmonization of the provisions on component parts used for repair of complex products and unclear interaction with copyright law, in particular the principle of cumulation,—an issue that was also broadly discussed by the scholars, as noted above.

2.2 International Rules The absence of a transnational pattern is reflected in the lack of international norms regarding the nature and extent of a second tier patent regime. For example, Article 1(2) Paris Convention merely states: ‘The protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trade marks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellations of origin, and the repression of unfair competition.’

Countries are free to formulate or reject utility model protection as they see fit; should a country introduce a utility model regime, it can tailor such a regime to exclusively adapt to local socioeconomic conditions and infra- structure. Nonetheless, it should also be noted that Paris Union countries which have a utility model regime cannot discriminate against a foreign rights holder in terms of recognition and enforcement of such utility models pursuant to the generally applicable national treatment obligation.11 Reciprocal national treatment will also apply for select international principles including the right of priority,12 the importation and forfeiture clauses,13 and the compulsory licensing arrangements.14 However, the Paris Convention is silent on the defi- nition, nature and scope of the right and protection. The TRIPS Agreement, by incorporating the main provisions of the Paris Convention, extends the WTO dispute settlement system to utility models; but the Agreement fails to estab- lish any other international benchmark for this form of protection.15

Congress will face a number of arguments if it creates sui generis protection for isolated bioproducts. Congress should prepare to address the argument that protecting isolated bioproducts degrades patent law because the purpose of the “product of nature” subject matter exclusion is to allow this material to remain in the public domain for all to access. Proponents of this view may argue that if the industry refuses to fund this research because of the lack of patent incentives, university researchers and the federal government will bridge any funding gap. There is a two-fold response to this argument.

The patent right is currently the most comprehensive intellectual property right and contains virtually no limitations for access to patented material during the patent term. Thus, the opportunity for an anticommons of knowledge to result from patenting upstream bioresearch is far greater due to: (1) the lack of public access to develop additional upstream bioproducts during the patent term; and (2) the heightened likelihood of market failures during the patent term, which inhibits downstream product development.230

The standard forms of intellectual property protection, namely copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets, have a long history and are well regulated in the legisla- tive systems of most jurisdictions. However, there are specific kinds of subject matter that, due to their characteristics, cannot be adequately protected by these standard forms of intellectual property instruments. At the same time, these categories of subject matter require legal protection in order to ensure the balance between the public’s access to these creations and the creators’ rights. For these reasons, many jurisdictions introduce special forms of intellectual property protection, namely sui generis regimes.

As used in this volume, the term “sui generis rights” refers to intellectual property rights used for protection of specific subject matter and different from the traditional forms of intellectual property rights (copyright, trademarks, patent, trade secret), thus reflecting the literal meaning of the Latin term (“of its own kind”).

THE SCPA WAS NECESSARY TO BRIDGE THE “PROGRESS GAP” CREATED BY RAMPANT CHIP PIRACY AND THE POOR FIT OF SEMICONDUCTORS WITHIN EXISTING STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Any proposed sui generis intellectual property legislation should be properly vetted to ensure that the exclusive rights granted do in fact meet the constitutional mandate of providing “exclusive rights for limited times to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.”151 It is not enough to establish that a certain type of intellectual property fails to qualify for either copyright or patent protection.152 The proposed legislation must create an incentive to innovate while simultaneously enriching the public domain, without disrupting existing intellectual property law.153

We agree that more powerful countries are likely to have more influence on the long-term future than less powerful ones, and that a country’s economic development is a strong indicator of its technological and geopolitical power. However, this does not mean that developed countries matter morally more than developing ones. Rather, it underscores the importance of global development—the process of low- and middle-income countries becoming high-income ones. Similarly, although workers in high-income countries generally have higher labor productivity, a large component of this is the place premium. That is, a worker’s productivity increases—sometimes by a factor of 15 or more—when they move from a poor country to a rich country, simply because they are being paid more for the same work. Once again, this speaks to the importance of global development and helping people escape poverty. This essay describes why it’s important for the long term future for everyone to be in a relatively high-income country, and what it might look like for global development to be a longtermist issue. Global development benefits the long-term future by increasing diversity in global institutions and reducing civilization’s vulnerability to global catastrophic risks like armed conflict and pandemics. What is global development? Effective altruists regularly talk about “global health and development” as a category of ways to do good. However, it’s clear now that development drives health much more than health drives development. Global development is the process by which low- and middle-income countries turn into high-income countries. The best modern example of this are the Asian countries of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and China. These have been compared with other Asian countries that were thought to be “tiger cubs” in the ‘90s such as the Philippines and Thailand in the book How Asia Works, by Joe Studwell. In this book, Joe lays out a recipe for development. Here’s the summary from Bill Gates: Create conditions for small farmers to thrive. Use the proceeds from agricultural surpluses to build a manufacturing base that is tooled from the start to produce exports. Nurture both these sectors (small farming and export-oriented manufacturing) with financial institutions closely controlled by the government. Importantly, in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and China, these steps were taken by relatively uncorrupted leaders who made it their life’s work to develop their home country. Other countries unable to develop had leadership who were swayed by the neoliberal free-market thinking pervasive at the World Bank and IMF at the time, or who were otherwise too corrupt or incompetent to stay true in delivering their development strategy. Global development is important for the long-term future In an EA Forum post, Beckstead defines three types of benefits that an intervention can have: proximate benefits, benefits from speeding up development, and trajectory changes. Global development would have immediate benefits for people alive today: economic development in low-income countries means that fewer people would experience poverty, illness, hunger, and violence. Speeding up development is speeding up the process by which countries become high-income, so it would ensure that people realize these benefits sooner. But most of the benefits of global development are through trajectory changes that affect the long-term future. We argue that global development creates significant long-term benefits through this route. Global development can also lead to trajectory changes in the global political environment that would not happen if the development timeline were slowed down, since such changes can be locked in over time. Global development increases diversity in global governance One of the main ways global development benefits the far future is through its impact on diversity and inclusion in world institutions. As countries get richer, their people get better educated and thus better placed to participate in institutions with great decision-making power over the world, such as multinational corporations, governments, and international organizations. Increasing the diversity of decision makers in global institutions improves the quality of world governance, which enables humanity to better navigate existential risks and other global challenges. Diversity in global institutions improves their efficacy in two ways. First, socially diverse groups outperform homogeneous groups at decision-making because they deliberate more carefully and pay more attention to facts. They also innovate more because diverse group members bring unique perspectives. Second, it improves value alignment between these institutions and humanity as a whole. It has been proposed that humanity should engage in a “long reflection” to decide what is ultimately of value before making potentially irreversible decisions regarding its future. For such decisions to reflect the values and needs of all of humanity, as many people as possible should be able to participate meaningfully in the global institutions making these decisions. Currently, about 689 million of the 8 billion people worldwide live in extreme poverty, and they cannot participate meaningfully in world governance as long as their basic needs are not met. 2.9 billion people lack Internet access, which is an important communication channel through which people make their voices heard on global issues and influence global institutions. Internet adoption is uneven across social groups: for example, women, people in rural areas, and people over age 25 are less likely to have Internet access. These disparities are especially pronounced in the 46 UN-designated Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Another barrier to diversity in global governance is the structure of institutions such as the United Nations, which is not designed to represent the general will of humanity. UN institutions represent the will of states—especially the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. Although a diverse group of countries have voices in the UN, their citizens do not, especially in the case of authoritarian states. Global development reduces existential risks Another important way in which global development improves the long-term future is by reducing existential risks, particularly risks from pandemics and political instability. 80,000 Hours estimates that the risk of a biological existential catastrophe in the next 100 years is about 1 in 1000. Poverty makes communities more susceptible to spreading infectious diseases. For example, a study of Monrovia, Liberia, in 2014 found that people living in slums who caught the Ebola virus spread it to an average of 3.5 times more people than people living in rich neighborhoods. This is because these neighborhoods are overcrowded, contaminated, and lacking in sanitation and health care infrastructure. Also, malnutrition weakens the immune systems of poor people, thereby making them more vulnerable to disease. Raising national income improves population health and enables countries to invest more in public health infrastructure, which makes populations more resilient to potentially catastrophic pandemics. Global poverty also causes existential risk through its negative effects on international security. Many developing countries, particularly weak states, are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty, corruption, and political instability: “Inept, corrupt, or weak governance fosters poverty; widespread poverty makes effective, equitable governance more difficult to achieve; and when weak governments fail to improve their people’s lives, their legitimacy suffers.” Weak states often engender terrorism and crime because they are unable to maintain law and order in their territories. Global development in practice There are two general ways to increase the living standards of people around the world. The first is reducing barriers to immigration to high-income countries so that more people from low-income countries can move to them, take advantage of the place premium, and send money back to their countries of origin. The second is to pursue policies to increase the productivity of low-income countries so that their people are better off. Reducing barriers to migration Opening up borders in high-income countries does not decrease opportunities for those in high-income countries (although it may stress city infrastructure if not planned well). Matthew Yglesias writes about a six-month period in 1980 where 125,000 Cubans left the Cuban port of Mariel and arrived in Florida (a 7% increase in the labor workforce). These immigrants weren't particularly skilled, but no decreases in natives’ wages occurred. Yglesias explains that immigrants increase the quality and variety of goods and services available, instead of competing for native workers’ jobs. Furthermore, when the supply of hired help is increased, some college-educated women who might have otherwise been stay-at-home moms are more likely to work. Immigrants also send money back home: for example, according to the Central Bank of the Philippines, between 1975 and 1994 Filipino overseas contract workers sent remittances totaling $18.196 billion (for comparison, the Philippines is currently $46B in debt to the World Bank, IMF, etc.).10 Closing the digital divide is also one way to gain some of the benefits of open borders, by opening up opportunities for jobs in high-income countries that can be done remotely to people in lower income countries.11 Catch-up growth Economic growth improves quality of life better than public health interventions. However, it is difficult for a country to increase its income unless the country's leadership is both dedicated to this cause, and following the correct strategy towards development. As pointed out by a report from Rethink Priorities last year, land redistribution (the first step of developing a country according to How Asia Works) is unlikely to happen without some kind of major turmoil (such as a country gaining independence) as landowners have political power, even if landowners are vastly outnumbered. Here are some examples of organizations pursuing catch-up growth in low- and middle-income countries: The World Bank and IMF provide loans and advice to low and middle income countries for development. Depending on the income of the country, the loan may not have to be repaid. The Gates Foundation provides entrepreneurial support. Newer organizations working on the problem include Growth Teams and the Charter Cities Institute. Entrepreneurs such as Sierra Juice and Jaza Energy contribute by providing jobs and increasing production value of exports. Interestingly, investment in non-hydro renewable energy has actually tipped to be greater in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries, now that solar has become cheaper. The Center for Global Development advocates for rich-world policies that benefit low- and middle-income countries. Other organizations engage in activities such as microloans, which are shown to benefit the recipient as long as the microloan is not used to fund people joining multi-level marketing schemes. Organizations like Grameen America should stop allowing the loans to be used for this purpose. Overall there are many more initiatives meant to alleviate poverty than to encourage the economic development and democratic power necessary to end it. Given that government-led development is hard without a people in power dedicated to and capable of executing development strategy, the mechanism by which development happens is by successful businesses giving people stable jobs, especially jobs that upskill workers in their career. Conclusion While a naive application of longtermism might lead one to think that low-income countries are less important than high-income countries, this view is facile because it ignores the fact that countries can and do develop over time. Rather, longtermism speaks to the importance of developing low-income countries into high-income ones. Global development improves the long-term future of humanity by improving global governance and decreasing civilization’s vulnerability to catastrophic risks. This makes global development a pressing longtermist issue.

Kazeeva 24 [Iana Kazeeva is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Innovation and Digitalisation in Law at the University of Vienna. She studied international commercial and tax law in Moscow and holds a Candidate of Sciences degree (Ph.D. equivalent) in international financial law (dissertation on fiscal decentralization). Prior to joining the Department, she worked at the Mountain View office of a California-based public software-as-a-service company, primarily engaged in reviewing and negotiating technology and commercial contracts. She also gained practical experience as a senior legal counsel at the legal department of a global producer of mineral fertilizers, focusing on project finance and legal compliance. At the Department, the primary focus of her research is on intellectual property, data security, and data protection law., Sui Generis Intellectual Property Protection Comparison of EU and U.S. Regulatory Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation, ALB]

1.2 The Reasons for Sui Generis Intellectual Property

Ukraine’s success can be credited in part to the resolve of the Ukrainian people, the weakness of the Russian military, and the strength of Western support. But it also owes to the defining new force of international politics: innovation power. Innovation power is the ability to invent, adopt, and adapt new technologies. It contributes to both hard and soft power. High-tech weapons systems increase military might, new platforms and the standards that govern them provide economic leverage, and cutting-edge research and technologies enhance global appeal. There is a long tradition of states harnessing innovation to project power abroad, but what has changed is the self-perpetuating nature of scientific advances. Developments in artificial intelligence in particular not only unlock new areas of scientific discovery; they also speed up that very process. Artificial intelligence supercharges the ability of scientists and engineers to discover ever more powerful technologies, fostering advances in artificial intelligence itself as well as in other fields—and reshaping the world in the process.

The ability to innovate faster and better—the foundation on which military, economic, and cultural power now rest—will determine the outcome of the great-power competition between the United States and China. For now, the United States remains in the lead. But China is catching up in many areas and has already surged ahead in others. To emerge victorious from this century-defining contest, business as usual will not do. Instead, the U.S. government will have to overcome its stultified bureaucratic impulses, create favorable conditions for innovation, and invest in the tools and talent needed to kick-start the virtuous cycle of technological advancement. It needs to commit itself to promoting innovation in the service of the country and in the service of democracy. At stake is nothing less than the future of free societies, open markets, democratic government, and the broader world order.

Sui generis, a Latin term meaning “of its own kind,” is a concept that holds great importance in the world of intellectual property. In this article, we will delve into the depths of patents, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), and the patent bar. By understanding these three key components, you will gain valuable insights into the intricate world of intellectual property rights.

Understanding the Concept of Sui Generis

Kazeeva 24 [Iana Kazeeva is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Innovation and Digitalisation in Law at the University of Vienna. She studied international commercial and tax law in Moscow and holds a Candidate of Sciences degree (Ph.D. equivalent) in international financial law (dissertation on fiscal decentralization). Prior to joining the Department, she worked at the Mountain View office of a California-based public software-as-a-service company, primarily engaged in reviewing and negotiating technology and commercial contracts. She also gained practical experience as a senior legal counsel at the legal department of a global producer of mineral fertilizers, focusing on project finance and legal compliance. At the Department, the primary focus of her research is on intellectual property, data security, and data protection law., Sui Generis Intellectual Property Protection Comparison of EU and U.S. Regulatory Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation, ALB]

1.2 The Reasons for Sui Generis Intellectual Property

That being said, I’ve included solvency deficit cards and answers to the net benefits. I personally do not think PDCP is viable (but feel free to try to prove me wrong.) I do think there could be some versions of perm do both and some type of intrinsic perm to be things, but I’ll let you figure it out beyond that hint.

Before I go farther – there is a generic NB section which is important. It is, however, very important that you review the sections of the files that apply to specific affs within the starter packet. For example, against the AI copyright licensing aff there are specific link turns to the first advantage that won’t be covered in the generic net benefit section.

For internal stuff: I have two versions of the 1NC. The first has a developing economies net benefit. There are two internal links to developing economies: First, a sui generis system will get modeled by developing nations that allow local innovation to take off yada yada. Second, even if it’s not modeled, sui generis gives a better access point to inventors in developing economies to get protection in the United States and therefore can open markets, prevent knockoffs, etc.

Here’s a video with real life examples: