Artificial Intelligence (AI), is revolutionising industries and daily life, shaping the way we work, communicate, and interact with technology, but its legal implications must also be considered. The next chapter explores AI’s complex relationship with intellectual property (IP), as well as whether AI should have a place in disputes, with expert advice on how various jurisdictions tackle bias and transparency in generative AI tools, as well as moves to legislate AI-related IP. With regards to the use of AI in dispute resolution in Massachusetts, Thomas Curran believes that the question isn’t whether AI should have a place in disputes, but rather, what can practitioners do to leverage AI efficiencies while avoiding its pitfalls? Concerning IP, Kenji Kuroda discusses proposals including opt-out mechanisms for copyrighted materials in AI training in Japan, after creators have expressed growing concerns about potential copyright infringements. However, Japan’s approach to AI and IP leans towards soft-law mechanisms, favouring guidelines over formal legislation. Conversely, in the EU, efforts are underway to develop a new AI Act focusing on safety, transparency, and non-discrimination. Claes Ottosson highlights how Sweden in particular has positioned itself as an AI adoption leader in public administration, including the judiciary system. The state of AI
FEATURING...
P24 US – MASSACHUSETTS Thomas H. Curran
Thomas H. Curran Associates, LLC
P28 ENGLAND
Stuart Hendry HecoAnalytics Ltd
P32 SWEDEN
Claes Ottoson Independia Law Firm AB
P32 SWEDEN
Elaine Gylling Independia Law Firm AB
P36 AUSTRALIA
James Conomos James Conomos Lawyers
P38 JAPAN
Kenji Kuroda Kuroda Law Offices
P40 US – OHIO
Chris Niekamp, Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC
P40 US – OHIO
Andrew Stebbins, Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC
P42 VIETNAM Stephen Le,
Le & Tran Law Corporation
22 | irglobal
irglobal | 23
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker