Photo by (

Meena Alnajar is an��IPilogue��Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,��and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School

��

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become both a friend and a foe to our society. , a collection of algorithms, beat Jeopardy! champions and may soon become your next doctor. But AI can also be exploited to . Should we move to ban AI altogether or create more regulations and rules? Ryan Abbott, ��and�� posits in his latest book, , that a different approach to law, not increasing the quantity of laws, is needed to regulate AI. Abbott proposes a new guiding tenet to AI regulation: . This tenet outlines that the law should not discriminate between AI and human behaviour. As AI increasingly invades spaces previously held for people, AI will need to be treated more like people. Abbott examines this concept in four legal areas: tax, torts, criminal, and intellectual property law.

Abbott frames each legal area in the context of growing automation, known as the . The book begins by discussing the changes to our tax regime if more work becomes automated. As an employee, AI does not require the same health benefits and protection. Therefore, businesses will have a tax incentive to automate. As we automate more work, the tax base shrinks, costing governments billions of dollars in tax revenue. To prevent such loss, between people and AI may be the solution. If there is no tax advantage to automated businesses and we move towards guaranteed income so that human employees are not disadvantaged because of AI’s inability to pay taxes, a neutral system for AI in the workplace can be achieved. Additional debates surrounding AI and unemployment currently exist. Some contest that the while others point to the potential negative impacts of AI in the workplace. While automation does generate new jobs in the information sector, those jobs are not easily accessible. Jobs created as a result of the proliferation of AI technology will require extensive education and are often . Increasing automation could create further disparities in the workplace.

The section on intellectual property (IP) is particularly intriguing in light of recent events. On July 29, 2021 . Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI system ‘DABUS’ was listed as an inventor for a patent related to beverage packaging and emergency lights. On July 30, 2021, Australia followed suit and , stating their decision to be The patenting process, as Abbott predicted in this book, may need to be drastically changed to recognize AI as an inventor. Patent Offices have not yet issued guidance as to whether AI could be regarded as an inventor. To be , an invention must be new, useful, and inventive, otherwise known as . The standards for patentability may be raised if AI is allowed as an inventor.

The person of ‘average skill’ is unclear with AI as an inventor. For instance, if AI becomes part of the biomedical field, responsible for discovering and patenting antibodies, does AI become the person of average skill in biomedicine? Considering that , humans filing to patent a “non-obvious” invention may face significant challenges. If inventive AI is allowed to patent and does so at a faster and greater capacity than humans, could this discourage the spirit of inventorship patent law seeks to foster in our society? Especially given that under AI legal neutrality, AI and humans should not be assessed through different standards. Abbott suggests the contrary: . AI legal neutrality suggests that work generated by AI be treated no less important than work patentable by humans.[1] Further, allowing AI to be listed as an inventor provides more transparency and accuracy to a patent’s creation,[2]ensuring fairness amongst innovators. AI’s capabilities as inventor should be recognized and encouraged since are to our benefit.

A future where AI invents and outperforms humans seems inevitable. Rather than ban a future dominated by AI, humans should view AI as a means to improve on what we have already built . Technology can be dangerous when used for nefarious purposes. However, when regulated within a proper framework, AI promotes ingenuity, saves lives and eases hardships in our society. It is still within our control as legal scholars, lawyers, and leaders to create productive rules so that we can flourish alongside the reasonable, helpful robot as opposed to living in fear of AI’s growing capabilities.

[1] Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020) at 164 (Kobo eBook).

[2] Ibid at 165.

The post The Reasonable Robot by Ryan Abbott: Legally regulating AI—is it obvious? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

All things smartened up

��5G is the next generation of wireless mobile networks. The speakers highlighted that 5G networks are primarily designed for increasing capacity and enhancing connectivity while operating at much lower latency values. These ultrafast 5G airwaves promise to through the sharing of information—as buildings, cars, people, and a myriad of devices will be able to communicate with each other. The new technology promises to further enhance the users’ experience with smart devices, smart cars, and smart homes. In addition, 5G networks will allow emerging technologies to operate at a much larger scale.

From connecting people to connecting things in real time

��For example, the panel on 5G networks remarked that, due to the myriad of new capabilities and disruptive applications made available using 5G wireless networks, virtually all industries will experience important changes in how they work and cooperate with one another. Industries will leverage real-time connectivity to the benefit of both consumers and businesses. New capabilities will allow segments of industries to experience real-time economic data, offering the potential to prompt the . To enable all of these features, 5G network communications will increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and big data to build new applications and create more services. As a result, interested parties will have to be attentive as a new regulatory landscape may develop to accommodate the demands of this increased data sharing reality.

How does society become 5G ready?

��In addressing this question, speakers at CTS 2018 remarked that putting the new technology to use will require several regulatory and policy discussions. Among other challenges, there will be massive amounts of data that can be quickly collected, mobilized, and exchanged across 5G networks. In the commercial and government space, several jurisdictions have engaged in devising regulatory frameworks for the deployment of the new technology (see examples and ).

Canadian policy makers know that this is an industry that needs investment as well as a modern regulatory landscape across municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government. For example, in his , the Honourable , the federal Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, announced that the Government of Canada will be launching two consultations�� to support 5G deployment:��the government is to add an additional 1GHz of millimetre spectrum to support 5G and is beginning a in advance of the 3500 MHz auction.�� Minister Bains also discussed an initiative through a Canada-Québec-Ontario partnership, (“ENCQOR”),��which he described as “a 5G test bed that will advance the development of 5G networking solutions and next-generation technologies and applications”.

Other countries, such as the are taking a great leap towards leadership in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure. In Canada, industry operators and other stakeholders are well positioned to develop relationships with different levels of the government with a view to speeding up the process of creating standards and laying out best practices for the operation of 5G networks.

Bottom line

5G networks promises innovation, disruption, as well as policy and regulatory discussions. Industry operators and other stakeholders should be attentive to the new opportunities arising from 5G networks, but they should also stay abreast of the impact the Canadian regulatory landscape may have in the industry — particularly by virtue of the challenges that may arise from the vastness amount of data that will be quickly collected, mobilized, and exchanged across 5G networks.

Bruna D. Kalinoski is a contributing editor for the IPilogue and holds an LLM from the Osgoode Professional Development Program at 91��ɫ.

The post 5G Networks Promise More Innovation and Disruption — But They Promise More Regulatory Discussions, Too appeared first on IPOsgoode.