Introducing The Anthropic Institute; Anthropic, March 11, 2026

 Anthropic; Introducing The Anthropic Institute

"We’re launching The Anthropic Institute, a new effort to confront the most significant challenges that powerful AI will pose to our societies. The Anthropic Institute will draw on research from across Anthropic to provide information that other researchers and the public can use during our transition to a world containing much more powerful AI systems.

In the five years since Anthropic began, AI progress has moved incredibly quickly. It took us two years to release our first commercial model, and just three more to develop models that can discover severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities, take on a wide range of real work, and even begin to accelerate the pace of AI development itself.

We predict that far more dramatic progress will follow in the next two years. One of our company’s core convictions is that AI development is accelerating: that the improvements we make are compounding over time. Because of this, extremely powerful AI, like the kind our CEO Dario Amodei describes in Machines of Loving Grace, is coming far sooner than many think.

If this is right, society is shortly going to need to confront many massive challenges. How will powerful AI systems reshape our jobs and economies? What kinds of opportunities for greater societal resilience will they give us? What kinds of threats will they magnify or introduce? What are the expressed “values” of AI systems and how will society help companies determine what the appropriate values are? And, if the recursive self-improvement of AI systems does begin to occur, who in the world should be made aware, and how should these systems be governed?

The Anthropic Institute’s goal is to tell the world what we’re learning about these challenges as we build frontier AI systems, and to partner with external audiences to help address the risks we must confront. Whether our societies are able to do so will determine whether or not transformative AI delivers the radical upsides that we believe are possible in science, economic development, and human agency.

The Institute is led by our co-founder Jack Clark, who will assume a new role as Anthropic’s Head of Public Benefit. It has an interdisciplinary staff of machine learning engineers, economists, and social scientists, bringing together and expanding three of Anthropic’s research teams: the Frontier Red Team, which stress-tests AI systems to understand the outermost limits of their current capabilities; Societal Impacts, which studies how AI is being used in the real world; and Economic Research, which tracks its impact on jobs and the larger economy. The Institute will also incubate new teams, and is currently working on efforts around forecasting AI progress and better understanding how powerful AI will interact with the legal system.

The Institute has a unique vantage point: it has access to information that only the builders of frontier AI systems possess. It will use this to its full advantage, reporting candidly about what we’re learning about the shape of the technology we’re making. At the same time, the Institute is a two-way street. It will engage with workers and industries facing displacement, and with the people and communities who feel the future bearing down on them but are unsure how to respond. What we learn will inform what the Institute studies, and how our company as a whole chooses to act.

The Anthropic Institute has made several founding hires:

• Matt Botvinick, a Resident Fellow at Yale Law School and previously Senior Director of Research at Google DeepMind and Professor in Neural Computation at Princeton, is joining the Institute to lead its work on AI and the rule of law.
• Anton Korinek is joining the Economic Research team, on leave from his role as Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia, to lead an effort studying how transformative AI could reshape the very nature of economic activity.
• Zoë Hitzig, who previously studied AI’s social and economic impacts at OpenAI, is joining to connect our economics work to model training and development."

Trump Administration, in Apparent Reversal, Tries to Continue Fight Against Law Firms; The New York Times, March 3, 2026

 Michael S. Schmidt,Jonah E. Bromwich and Devlin Barrett, The New York Times; Trump Administration, in Apparent Reversal, Tries to Continue Fight Against Law Firms

The administration told a court on Monday that it was abandoning its defense of executive orders targeting the firms. But on Tuesday, the Justice Department appeared to abruptly change its position.

"The Trump administration indicated on Tuesday that it planned to renew its defense of executive orders that it had leveled against law firms, a sharp reversal a day after indicating that it would drop that fight in court, according to people familiar with the matter.

The situation remained fluid Tuesday morning. It was not immediately clear what legal strategy the administration would ultimately embrace or whether a court would allow the Justice Department to reverse course.

The Justice Department did not immediately comment. The White House declined to comment...

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday what had prompted the about-face. But one question that the administration’s decision a day earlier to abandon its cases raised was whether the deals it made with nine law firms would survive and whether those contracts — which were not made public — were considered unconstitutional given that the district court ruling would be final."

Nine Law Firms Surrendered. Four Law Firms Won.; The New York Times, March 3, 2026

 THE EDITORIAL BOARD, THE NEW YORK TIMES; Nine Law Firms Surrendered. Four Law Firms Won.

"The four law firms that last year chose to fight President Trump’s illegal intimidation campaign have won vindication. Federal judges had already struck down Mr. Trump’s executive orders trying to punish the firms for representing or employing people he considered to be his political enemies. On Monday, the Trump administration abandoned its appeals of those rulings, accepting defeat.

The victories of the four firms — Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — are a triumph for justice and democracy. The executive orders that Mr. Trump signed early in his second term were based on the lie that the firms had done something wrong. In fact, their lawyers were merely doing their jobs. They happened to represent Democrats and liberal groups or participated in prior investigations of him. And his would-be punishments of the firms had the potential to damage them badly. The executive orders barred the firms’ lawyers from entering federal buildings and meeting with federal officials, activities that are a necessary part of many legal cases.

The larger goal of the executive orders was chilling. The president attacked a bedrock principle of the law, which is that everybody deserves legal representation. He sought to frighten lawyers from representing people who had the temerity to criticize him. By extension, he sought to frighten any Americans who might criticize him.

Fighting the executive orders took courage, and the four firms deserve praise and gratitude for standing up to the president. They all risked losing clients and even having their firms collapse. Nine other firms folded and struck deals intended to mollify the president. The deals included promises to perform millions of dollars of pro bono work on behalf of Trump-friendly clients.

These nine firms all failed a high-stakes character test. Their leaders faced a choice between submitting to a bully and doing the right thing. The firms are not household names to most Americans, but it is worth listing them here. We hope that clients looking for fearless attorneys and law students deciding where to work will remember which elite firms were unwilling to fight back. Meekness is not a quality most people seek in a lawyer.

The first firm to fold was Paul Weiss, whose chairman at the time, Brad Karp, undertook what Ruth Marcus of The New Yorker described as a “desperate” campaign to reach a deal with Mr. Trump. The other eight firms were A&O Shearman; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Milbank; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden Arps; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher...

The four law firms that fought the White House read the situation correctly. They insisted on due process and relied on judges to protect their rights under the Constitution. The American legal system depends on due process. Nobody, not even the president, should be able simply to assert that a person or organization has behaved wrongly and then exact a punishment for that behavior."

No Amazon, No Gmail: Trump Sanctions Upend the Lives of I.C.C. Judges; The New York Times, January 10, 2026

 Marlise Simons, The New York Times; No Amazon, No Gmail: Trump Sanctions Upend the Lives of I.C.C. Judges

"To be elected a judge at the International Criminal Court was long considered an honor. For Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, the distinction has become an ordeal.

Ms. Ibáñez was a prosecutor in her native Peru, where she oversaw trials of Shining Path terrorists, of military officers accused of human rights abuses and of government officials charged with corruption. Death threats were common.

But since the Trump administration imposed sanctions on her and on some of her colleagues in retaliation for the court’s decision to investigate U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, she has faced different kinds of challenges, she said. The penalties effectively cut the judges off from all American funds, goods and credit cards, and prohibit individuals and business in the United States from working with them.

“We’re treated like pariahs, we are on a list with terrorists and drug dealers,” Ms. Ibáñez said...

In response to the hostility, the court is overhauling its American-dominated tech and financial systems. The court’s records and other data storage have been backed up at different sites, and finance and communications systems are being shifted to European platforms, according to several experts familiar with the court’s work who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters...

In September, the court announced that it would transfer its office software from Microsoft to an open-source platform developed by a German government-owned company."

DOJ faces ethics nightmare with Trump bid for $230M settlement; The Hill, October 31, 2025

 REBECCA BEITSCH, The Hill; DOJ faces ethics nightmare with Trump bid for $230M settlement

[Kip Currier: This real life "nightmare" scenario is akin to a hypothetical law school exam fact pattern with scores of ethics issues for law students to identify and discuss. Would that it were a fictitious set of facts.

If Trump's former personal attorneys, who are now in the top DOJ leadership, will not recuse themselves due to genuine conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, will the state and federal bar associations, who license these attorneys and hold them to annual continuing legal and ethics-related education requirements so they can remain in good standing with their respective licensing entities, step in to scrutinize potential ethical lapses of these lawyers?

These unprecedented actions by Trump must not be treated as normal. Similarly, if Trump's former personal attorneys approve Trump's attempt to "shake down" the federal government and American taxpayers, their ethically dubious actions as DOJ leaders and officers of the court must not be normalized by the organizations that are charged to enforce ethical standards for all licensed attorneys.

Moreover, approval of this settlement would be damaging to the rule of law and to public trust in the rule of law. If the most powerful person on the planet can demand that an organization -- whose leadership reports to him -- pay out a "settlement" for lawfully-conducted actions and proceedings in a prior administration, what does that say about the state of justice in the U.S.? I posit that it would say that it is a justice system that has been utterly corrupted and that is not subject to equal application of its laws and ethical standards. No person is above the law, or should be above the law in our American system of government and checks and balances. Not even the U.S. President, despite the Roberts Court's controversial Trump v. U.S. July 2024 ruling recognizing absolute and limited Presidential immunity in certain spheres.

Finally, a few words about "speaking out" and "standing up". It is vital for those who are in leadership positions to call out actions like the ones at hand that arguably undermine the rule of law and incrementally move this country from one that is democratically-centered to an autocratic nation state like Russia. I searched for and could find no statement by the American Bar Association (ABA) on this matter, a matter that is clearly relevant to its membership, of which I count myself as a member.

Will the ABA and other legal organizations share their voices on these matters that have such far-reaching implications for the rule of law and our nearly 250-year democratic experiment?

The paperback version of my Bloomsbury book, Ethics, Information, and Technology, becomes available on November 13, and I intentionally included a substantial professional and character ethics section at the outset of the book because those principles are so integral to how we conduct ourselves in all areas of our lives. Ethics precepts and values like integrity, attribution, truthfulness and avoidance of misrepresentation, transparency, accountability, and disclosure of conflicts of interest, as well as recusal when we have conflicts of interest.]

[Excerpt]

"The Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing pressure to back away from a request from President Trump for a $230 million settlement stemming from his legal troubles, as critics say it raises a dizzying number of ethical issues.

Trump has argued he deserves compensation for the scrutiny into his conduct, describing himself as a victim of both a special counsel investigation into the 2016 election and the classified documents case.

The decision, however, falls to a cadre of attorneys who previously represented Trump personally.

Rupa Bhattacharyya, who reviewed settlement requests in her prior role as director of the Torts Branch of the DOJ’s Civil Division, said most agreements approved by the department are typically for tens of thousands of dollars or at most hundreds of thousands.

“In the ordinary course, the filing of administrative claims is required. So that’s not unusual. In the ordinary course, a relatively high damages demand on an administrative claim is also not that unusual. What is unusual here is the fact that the president is making a demand for money from his own administration, which raises all sorts of ethical problems,” Bhattacharyya told The Hill.

“It’s also just completely unheard of. There’s never been a case where the president of the United States would ask the department that he oversees to make a decision in his favor that would result in millions of dollars lining his own pocket at the expense of the American taxpayer.”

It’s the high dollar amount Trump is seeking that escalates the decision to the top of the department, leaving Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, as well as Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, to consider the request."

Commentary: A win-win-win path for AI in America; The Post & Courier, July 22, 2025

Keith Kupferschmid, The Post & Courier; Commentary: A win-win-win path for AI in America

"Contrary to claims that these AI training deals are impossible to make at scale, a robust free market is already emerging in which hundreds (if not thousands) of licensed deals between AI companies and copyright owners have been reached. New research shows it is possible to create fully licensed data sets for AI.

No wonder one federal judge recently called claims that licensing is impractical “ridiculous,” given the billions at stake: “If using copyrighted works to train the models is as necessary as the companies say, they will figure out a way to compensate copyright holders.” Just like AI companies don’t dispute that they have to pay for energy, infrastructure, coding teams and the other inputs their operations require, they need to pay for creative works as well.

America’s example to the world is a free-market economy based on the rule of law, property rights and freedom to contract — so, let the market innovate solutions to these new (but not so new) licensing challenges. Let’s construct a pro-innovation, pro-worker approach that replaces the false choice of the AI alarmists with a positive, pro-America pathway to leadership on AI."

Council of Europe opens first ever global treaty on AI for signature; Council of Europe, September 5, 2024

 Council of Europe; Council of Europe opens first ever global treaty on AI for signature

"The Council of Europe Framework Convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy, and the rule of law (CETS No. 225) was opened for signature during a conference of Council of Europe Ministers of Justice in Vilnius. It is the first-ever international legally binding treaty aimed at ensuring that the use of AI systems is fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The Framework Convention was signed by Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom as well as Israel, the United States of America and the European Union...

The treaty provides a legal framework covering the entire lifecycle of AI systems. It promotes AI progress and innovation, while managing the risks it may pose to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. To stand the test of time, it is technology-neutral."

Putting China in charge of the world’s intellectual property is a bad idea; The Washington Post, Janaury 30, 2020

Josh Rogin , The Washington Post; Putting China in charge of the world’s intellectual property is a bad idea

"Beijing is lobbying hard to take over leadership of the international organization that oversees intellectual property, which could result in dire consequences for the future of technology and economic competition. But the U.S.-led effort to prevent this from happening faces a steep uphill climb.

In March, 83 countries will vote to elect the next director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a U.N.-created body founded in 1967 “to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world.” The Chinese candidate, Wang Binying, currently serves as one of its four deputy director-generals and is widely seen as the front-runner.

On its face, allowing China to assume leadership of the WIPO poses a clear risk to the integrity of the institution, given that the U.S. government has singled out China as the leading source of intellectual property theft in the world."

As Kit Kat, Starbucks and Posh Spice rulings show, intellectual property is big but bittersweet business; South China Morning Post, August 1, 2018

Stephen Vines, South China Morning Post; As Kit Kat, Starbucks and Posh Spice rulings show, intellectual property is big but bittersweet business

"Chinese trademark law is still very much in the process of evolution and the time it is taking to develop is causing much vexation among international branded goods companies. They are also still engaged in attempts to curb outright trademark and intellectual property theft, which is supposed to have been largely stamped out, but as anyone familiar with hawkers on streets of mainland cities knows, this battle is far from over.

Hong Kong has better established and less complex trademark laws and rules but the local regime is hardly exemplary, as applications for trademarks are known to drag on for a long time and there seems to be a rather quixotic approach to what are regarded as being generic names, as opposed to specific names that apply to individual brands...

The issue of trademarks is one of the biggest aspects of intellectual property protection, which is climbing the agenda of both global trade talks and the concerns of individual companies."

James Grimmelmann Dec. 2nd Talk at Drexel University

James Grimmelmann Dec. 2nd Talk at Drexel University, "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law":

Date: 12/2/2009
Start Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Rush Building, Room 014

Joint lecture: "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann

The iSchool at Drexel, College of Information Science and Technology, and the Earle Mack School of Law will co-sponsor the lecture "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room 014, Rush Building (30 N. 33rd Street).Mr. Grimmelmann will review the history of the Google Books project, lawsuit, and proposed settlement, then discuss the questions it raises for information policy and the rule of law. These touch on issues of copyright, antitrust, privacy, free speech, and civil procedure, and are connected to bigger themes in public policy. He is an Associate Professor at New York Law School and a member of its Institute for Information Law and Policy.

Background: http://www.nyls.edu/centers/harlan_scholar_centers/institute_for_information_law_and_policy/events/d_is_for_digitize/programhttp://thepublicindex.org/

http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/home/about/calendar/details/?event=1569