Harvard Law Today; Is the law playing catch-up with AI?
"Harvard Law Today: Why was the Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law Conference in November convened? Why is it important to be talking about AI and IP right now?
William Lee: In the past, this event has been much more focused on the specifics of the law and comparisons of the different approaches across jurisdictions. This year, the conference addressed AI more generally with moderators and panelists from a wider variety of fields including homeland security, life sciences, technological development, non-profit advocacy, and even ethics. I think it was an introduction into AI for many of the people in the room and who better to provide that introduction than [Harvard Law School Professor] Jonathan Zittrain ’95. Matt Ferraro, senior counselor for cybersecurity and emerging technology to the secretary of Homeland Security and executive director of the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board, led a panel primarily of industry leaders, explaining the capabilities and trajectory of AI technology. Then, Iain Cunningham from NVIDIA chaired an excellent panel mostly composed of academics and people from industry discussing how IP law and AI interact. We also had input from experts on the AI and IP relationship in jurisdictions across the globe, including Europe, the UK, and Africa, on a panel moderated by Terry Fisher that was particularly illuminating. Then, we closed with a judges panel where a group of five Federal Circuit and two District Court judges offered views on AI issues as well as IP more broadly.
Louis Tompros: IP law has historically, and inherently, operated at the intersection of law and fast-moving technology. Artificial Intelligence is currently where technology is moving the fastest and where the law has the most ground to cover in order to keep pace. This conference was designed to educate folks about AI technology and the various IP law approaches taken in the United States and around the world, and to help forecast how protections for creative and useful ideas will function in the context of these innovative systems. We try to make the IP conference as broadly appealing and relevant to the groups of constituents that are interested in participating, that is, people within the legal community, the business community, and the academic community, including Harvard Law School students. This year was the first time ever that the conference was fully subscribed via pre-registration which is, I think, a great testament to the level and breadth of interest. You can tell that we got it right precisely because of the incredible interest in this year’s event.
HLT: Throughout history, innovations have compelled IP law to adjust and evolve to account for new technology, like the radio, the television, and the internet. Is AI different?
Tompros: The law can’t possibly stay ahead. It will always lag a bit behind. Honestly, that’s part of the fun of IP law because the law is perpetually having to evolve by necessity to keep pace with rapidly evolving aspects of technology. I don’t think AI is different in kind from previous technological revolutions that affected the law, but I do think it is quite possibly different in scale. The pace of the development of the technology here is so accelerated that the speed at which technological advances are coming makes it even harder for the already trailing legal system to catch up. That leads to some interesting possibilities, but it also leads to some serious challenges. Ultimately, it demands creative and innovative thinking in the design of legal structures established to try to manage it."
