Interpreting the Idea/Expression Dichotomy for Enhanced Creativity in the Information Age
By Paul Kimani
That copyright law does not protect ideas and only the expression of ideas is trite. This principle, referred to as the idea/expression dichotomy, is the fundamental axiom of copyright law. Under this doctrine, only expressions of ideas, and not ideas themselves, receive copyright protection. Ideas are the building blocks of culture, creativity, communication, innovation, and expression. The idea/expression dichotomy regulates the public domain by seeking to ensure that ideas are available for use by potential creators. The principal objective is to encourage creativity; however, the current formulation and interpretation of the doctrine are indefinite and unprincipled, and this has prevented the doctrine from adequately encouraging the creative process.
Derivative works are a mainstay of the information age. Essentially, a derivative work is a creative expression that is based on an earlier copyright work in some way and is a subsequent, separate work independent from the first. Digital technologies and the internet have significantly enhanced the creation of such works by simplifying the process by which creators are able to remix existing works. Ideally, the idea/expression dichotomy plays the important role of ensuring that potential creators are free to take from the common stock the ideas they require to create new works—thus enhancing creativity.
* * * * * * *
Big Data Analytics to Automate Patent Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence’s Inventions
By Omid Valinasab
The exponential growth of artificial intelligence (AI) will change the future of humanity. As Stephen Hawking once suggested, the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it; the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all. Indeed, AI might end up being crucial to the future of our civilization and our species, thus, at least for now, the question is whether AI can be controlled at all.
For the time being, when it comes to patent incentivization, an AI’s power ends at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A patent is an exclusive right granted to an inventor—a natural person—in exchange for a full disclosure of the invention. Much like humans, AI machines can invent arts and sciences. In the patent application process, the USPTO requires a natural person to be the patent holder, and the holder must provide full dis- closure of the invention. Hence, compliance with the current patent require- ments has become very challenging when it comes to AI inventions.
* * * * * * *
Hampering Innovation Through Improperly Kept Secrets
By Joshua Ridgway
“To everything, there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.”
This dogma is fundamental to the idea outlined in this article that every- thing has its proper time and place and its appropriate use and bounds. Trade secrets have the potential to exceed their bounds, and society must secure the doctrine in its proper role before it becomes so entrenched that it can never be dislodged from where it should never have gone. When serving their proper function—which is primarily to protect luxury consumer goods—trade secrets enable many useful endeavors by protecting confidential information that businesses and individuals rely upon to ensure business continuity and, arguably, their livelihoods.
Trade secrets were not meant to serve as a global solution to intellectual property concerns especially since difficulties arise when industries that are integral to modern society. Examples include the energy and telecommunica- tions industries. Difficulties arise, however, when industries that are integral to modern society, such as the energy industry, decide to use the alluring com- ponents of trade secret law to protect their confidential information instead of attempting to obtain a patent for their machinery. Two problems arise when an entity seeks to use the protection afforded by trade secret law to conceal its products or the processes involved in manufacturing goods and services.
* * * * * * *
Emerging Threats: A Primer on Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Data Breaches
By Michael Walsh
Companies must carefully manage their privacy programs to avoid huge liability for violations of state consumer data protection laws such as the California Privacy Rights Act. Oftentimes, it seems like companies pay little at- tention to other bases of relief for similar types of harm, such as state unfair and deceptive trade practice state statutes. Consumers may use state unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes (UDAP statutes) to file massive class actions because most state data breach laws do not contain a private right of action, or if they do, it is limited. In fact, most notable litigation relating to the highest profile data breaches in the last decade have included at least a handful of violations of different unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes, many of which allow for flexible definitions of which privacy practices are considered “unfair.” These consolidated class actions often result in settlement awards in the hundreds of millions of dollars
* * * * * * *
Patently Biased: A Discussion of Historical and Systemic Causes of Racial Disparity in Patent Law
By Sophia Iams
This article addresses the racial disparity in patenting rates through a ho- listic discussion of the potential causes of bias introduced in the patent system. A nearly twenty-five percent decreased likelihood of securing a patent exclud- ing factors other than race is an unacceptable form of discrimination. Prohib- itively high costs for patent applications, ranging from $10,000 to $40,000, dis- courage those who know pursuing and promoting advancements in science and technology. The modern structure of the patent system is silencing many who have the potential to introduce ground-breaking innovations. Based on a review of the current literature discussed throughout, there are concrete and realistic steps that can be taken to create a more equitable system.
* * * * * * *
