Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
The points and counterpoints brought up by experts at a Stanford Law conference provide insight on the future relationship between AI and copyright creators.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
Most of the legal industry has by now boarded the generative artificial intelligence train, filling up conference sessions dedicated to the topic, testing new legal technology solutions and exploring the emerging legal questions that the technology will pose. But most of their questions about generative AI are still unanswered.
