How many of the cases we’ve seen wherein one AI company sued another AI company for the violation of the BERNE or TRIPS or PARIS Convention? None! In the recent case of Grok VS OpenAI (or Musk VS Sam) too, what exactly is the dispute? That any non-profit should not be allowed to work for profit, else, this will send a wrong message, creating a wrong precedence! And secondly, Musk alleging that, OpenAI wanted to bring him as the shareholder, which Musk considered as bribe (check again for the exact wordings)!
We have witnessed many cross-litigations in Tech Industry whether it belonged to the Search Engine Giants for monopolies under the Anti-Competitive / Anti-Trust Laws, or, of the IP (especially Patents) infringement cases going back to the 1990s, in which it was argued from -> that the IP must be protected, to, one cannot enjoy the monopoly in the Market, citing examples of Netscape Navigator vs Internet Explorer, to, Duck Duck Go vs Google Search! As we all know that to become the monopoly itself, certain backing is required!
But in the modern times, how many of us have witnessed that one AI company is suing another AI company stating that, if the dilution of the BERNE or TRIPS or Paris Convention is allowed, then, it would send wrong precedence, just alike in the case of Musk vs Sam, wherein Musk has argued that, if the non-profits are allowed to go for profit, then it will send a wrong message & precedence! Back then, Nadella, when Altman withdrew from the Microsoft, stated that if today, these Gen AI companies, and especially signalling to the ChatGPT, are closed, then the IP of everyone would automatically be protected. Now I don’t remember his exact words, that’s why I’m not mentioning herein (sic), and as I couldn’t find that statement as well, so one can cross-verify that, and kindly let me know also if this is wrong!
Except for this statement, I haven’t heard from a single CEO in the World running any AI company that they should be stopped if they can’t protect the IP Rights of -> others! Yet, when it comes to Anti-Trust laws, to, Non OR For Profits cases, to AI companies’ own AI IP rights; then, they will come in the Media and seek their blessings to remain relevant in the Media for their own sake!
Thus, it would be a pleasure to hear from some CEO of any AI company that, what they’ve done so far by burning and butchering BERNE or Paris Convention or TRIPS, shouldn’t have happened, and initiate a proceedings just alike, in the case of Anti-Trust, IP Infringements, For or Not For Profit cases, and set an example to remain relevant in the media!
Am I missing something! 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment