As the focus on protecting personal data continues to grow with the ever-widening adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, exponential increases in the number and breadth of data breaches, and growing awareness of the risk posed by data brokers, the time appears right for a U.S. federal data privacy regulation to succeed in Congress. But is the new American Privacy Rights Act that regulation?
This article describes certain key developments in the period from passage of the CHIPS Act through the present day, and provides a brief survey of key grantmaking and investment activity by U.S. government agencies since passage of the Act.
This article explores the benefits and risks of AI-driven drug discovery from the legal perspective. Since the law governing IP rights in AI-driven drug discovery is still in its infant state, any future legal development is likely to have significant implications in many areas.
A statutory predicate to the contractual outcome regarding ownership of patent rights is the requirement of a sufficient contribution by a natural person in the effort that yielded the output. The issues implicated by this requirement are one development among more to come as patent law and policy try to catch up to proliferating AI technology.
The points and counterpoints brought up by experts at a Stanford Law conference provide insight on the future relationship between AI and copyright creators.
GAI platforms like ChatGPT and OpenAI often require very little human input, shattering this legal landscape's framework by posing a simple question: Who authored the material? We'll explore how two countries are answering this question in different ways.
Integrating AI tools into legal practice without compromising the security of sensitive client information is a paramount concern. In this article, we'll examine how AI is revolutionizing certain aspects of legal work, while offering best practices for employing these technologies and providing guidance for legal professionals in selecting the right AI products and service providers.
Because AIs are capable of causing harm but cannot be a legal entity, they are not held accountable by court action. Several current and future possibilities exist to resolve AI difficulties. Current options involve identifying indirect liability. Future options include but are not limited to changing the law to make an AI a legal person and/or changing the law to make AI programing an ultra-hazardous activity.
AI is designed to accomplish goals specified by and receive directions from a human being. Thus, it has been suggested that either direct or vicarious liability may be applied to hold the human programmer who wrote the software algorithms liable for the damages caused by the AI agent.
The concentration of dominant technology firms could harm U.S. national interests and global leadership, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan said in March at a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event.
