By Eunmi Kang. Eunmi is a second year law student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. She graduated from law school in Korea before moving to the United States. Previously, she worked at the Human Rights Commissioner’s Office in South Korea, working with foreign clients. She is a Fellow of the McCarthy Institute and has worked as a legal research aid on topics of technology governance.
- THE LACK OF DISCUSSION OF ALLOCATION OF SHARES IN WORK PRODUCT
In 2024, a Nobel Prize in Chemistry was attributed to the significant scientific achievement by a scientist, Dr. David Baker, and to a research group, DeepMind, which developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model that solves a problem of prediction of all-known protein structures.[1] For this recognition, the Nobel Prize committee selected and awarded Dr. David Baker, the CEO of DeepMind, and the lead researcher at DeepMind.[2] Although both of them had based their study on computational methods, the latter were rather untraditional recipients of the Nobel Prize, as their association was with Google, a global tech conglomerate.
Google owns an AI model called AlphaFold2, which is now widely used in pharmaceutical and environmental technology. Google already owns other AI models in many other fields that compete with human intellectuality and brainpower in the chess and the Go game. In any sector where human intellectuality is likely required, an AI developer can develop an AI model that could jump into the competition and claim a share of the market. However, the impact of AI in research is vast and widespread, there is scant literature on research ethics and regulations about how to allocate research results and share incentives in studies requiring the use of an AI model.
Moreover, there is little academic discourse addressing this issue. In this empty dialogue, the Nobel Prize committee has appropriately recognized the effort of DeepMind to share the power of artificial intelligence for the public good, as AlphaFold2 is open to public use.[3] When shared with other stakeholders, backlash to the innovation is less likely as others will have a taste of the fruits. Even in this context, it logically follows that private companies like Google are not obligated to share. In this context, tension arises between human researchers and AI model developers because the AI model was built upon previous ideas, scientific findings, and information established by the precedent.
- OBSTACLES IN FINDING THE PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN PRODUCTS FROM AI TOOLS
Despite the attention and fame that AI technology has acclaimed, there have been few legislative efforts in regulating it since 2018, and very few cases have been presented in courts regarding the proprietary rights over the product created by AI. Congress does not keep pace with AI output in science and industry. For this reason, AI technology is mainly governed by a soft-law regime, which is flexible and cooperative between stakeholders of interest. There is also strong skepticism about AI technology from public, which deters open discussion to draw a fair line between stakeholders.[4] In a barren discussion, the first law related to AI was made in 2018 as a part of the national defense bill, called the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).[5] The second legislative action was to regulate the use of AI through a bill introduced in 2020, called the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (NAIIA).[6]
The evolution of artificial intelligence continues to challenge the existing frameworks of intellectual property law. As we progress, lawmakers, legal professionals, and stakeholders must engage more actively in discussions and collaborations. These efforts should refine and possibly expand legislative measures to keep pace with the rapid advancements in AI technology. Addressing these gaps is essential to both foster innovation and ensure that the rights of creators, developers, and the public are balanced. Developing comprehensive and clear legal standards for AI-generated products is an imperative next step in aligning technology with the principles of equity and fairness in intellectual property rights.
[1] Press Release, The Nobel Prize, The Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Oct. 9, 2024)(on file with author).
[2] The Nobel Prize, All Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes-in-chemistry/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2025).
[3] The source code for AlphaFold2 is accessible on GitHub, allowing researchers and developers to freely use and modify the model according to their research needs. https://github.com/google-deepmind/alphafold (last visited on Jan. 31, 2025).
[4] Future of Life Institute, Our Mission, https://futureoflife.org/our-mission/ (last visited Jan. 31, 2025).
[5] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, H.R. 5515, 115th Cong. (2018).
[6] National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020, H.R. 6216, 116th Congress (2020).