The Dilemma Of Myriad Licensing Agreements!

 

Disney signed a Licensing Agreement with OpenAI for using its characters. Whilst ByteDance danced on the Cease and Desist notice, and now have pledged to safeguard the IP Rights. At Least ByteDance took a pledge to respect the BERNE; UNLIKE other AI companies & search engines, who were training their modules vide scrapping WEB, and busy putting blame on the USERS only, for generating an infringed output. That’s why in one of my earlier blogs I’ve mentioned that, use these generative AI platforms etc. mostly either for personal use or for the R&D activities, despite of their non-deterministic nature.

The Coding, The Copyrights, The Inventions!

 

I was a Weekend Coder doing it for FUN. It started in 90s with C, then C++, creating for instance, dummy model of Train Ticket Booking System; and before that, HTML, for building websites; then, moving towards the VC++, Core Java, Javascript (for GUI; sometimes using Core JAVA for the GUI which was more tedious to maintain the flow of alignments; whilst sometimes using VB, which was quite easier), J2EE  / J2ME (JSP for WEB based), SQL, some part of Oracle for the backhand DB connectivity; until the APP era came in late 00, and then the Android, IOS, Windows, Blackberry (I presume) exponentially replaced the WEB development. Windows and Blackberry eventually vanished. But I switched on to the Android part basically where in the early 2010, building both the Native and Hybrid APPs on Weekends. if I correctly remember, in one of my APP, I used the GPS feature to draw an image automatically, while you move your cell anywhere. In another one, I used APIs of NASA for Mars Rover related APP. That was interesting! And the most easiest Language I would say would be PYTHON, if I’m not wrong. In the initial era of the coding, you had to define even the margines, alignments, and adjustments. When I was doing that with Core JAVA, C++, or, C, it was even more difficult. But with JS, always easier. And in the era of APP coding (Eclipse), it became quite simple. Then, I also did Coding at Embedded Level, designing the Circuits, or, controlling RASPBERRY PI vide Bluetooth APP that I built in Android, like creating a Prototype of fire extinguisher, NERF shooter etc. controlled vide my APP. This all I was doing on the Weekend for FUN, or while traveling to my workplace in the BUS. I even worked on building Drivers, that were more difficult to CODE than to build any Native or Hybrid APP. This all I did until 2016, then I lost the touch, and stopped doing so. And one thing in Coding is that, if you’re not Coding, for let’s say six months, then you’re as good as a fresh coder. Ask this question to any Coder. Today you’ve AI to CODE, which is more boring I would say.

So, from Breadboard to actual Circuits, from C to Android to cross platforms APPs, I always wondered, where can the inventive features be drawn in all this. Because at the end of the day, you’re using Libraries already defined, APIs been derived etc. At the embedded level, it was justified, as I myself worked on that. But at the basic SW level, let’s say for a web portal related to matrimony or social networking site; where one can find the inventive feature? At one point, when owners of these Social Networking sites came forward and said that, “The ‘LIKE’ Button Is an Invention! Then, I Honestly got Confounded and asked myself, could that be?”

What one thing I’ve found that, Computer Engineering is not an Engineering Subject! Nope! It should’ve been treated as Computer Science from the beginning, not Engineering. Further, if we wanted to add Computer Engineering as the subject of Engineering, then, its curriculum should’ve been amalgamated with:

1.     Embedded Engineering

2.     Electronics Engineering

3.     Computer Science

4.     And if possible, some part of Electrical Engineering    

These four subjects together should’ve been considered as the subject of Computer Engineering, wherein, then the scope of the inventiveness could’ve been more elaborated. That’s why anything Software related was mostly restricted to Copyrights only.

Am I missing something!😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

Some Suggestions For The Originators’!

 

There are Inventors who ne’er Invented a thing, YET, have Patents in their Names; not as Applicant(s), BUT, as Inventors! Same goes for the Designs, Copyrights, Trademarks! Somehow, investors, innovators, &, representations, are becoming inventors / originators. And this ain’t a thing to be flabbergasted about! This has been happening for centuries; only the methods changed.

The same went for when I solicited for the need of inventorship certificates, even before the Certificate of Inventorship was introduced; but, it needed more upgradations, like, the contribution of each inventor in the said work, which the inventorship certificate should incorporate.

The travesty is, this false hubris is not even ending there. Now, it has been compounded into a saying -> “That My Name Is Enough Than My Work.” DUH! There is only one bad habit of the innovators or investors or representations, that, they introduce themselves in the mainstream as originators, while they not being the one! And from that point, this blog starts.  

So here are my suggestions to the Originators:

Q. The DATA On Servers, Its Governing LAW, The Law Of The Jungle In The World, AND, Erosion Of TRUST Forever!

 

 

As Emily Dickinson Wrote -> Tell All The Truth But Tell It Slant!

So, I’ll give you TWO Examples contrary to each other. Questions are same, Yet, the Results, poles apart!

In 2015, in the APPLE VS. F.B.I. matter, wherein Apple Won the Case to Protect the Privacy of iPhones by Refusing to Comply to the FBI’s demands to Create a Backdoor Key of the Phone that belonged to the San Bernardino Terror Attack Accused! Eventually, Apple also Won the World’s trust. Despite, at the time, when the Mainstream was publishing Snowden’s Columns’ about how everyone’s Data is readable, including personal and private information, and this whole concept of privacy / encryption is sham; the era wherein Assange’s columns’ getting published about the Wars and Love; and further where it was said that China cannot be Trusted; YET, Apple presented the case, and Won, and since then, Exponentially increased its Revenues! Why? Because that time, the sitting Presidente, didn’t declare to the World EXPLICITLY, that -> Henceforth, Only The Law of The Jungle Prevails Everywhere!

Now here Emily’s Poem comes into effect, as, everyone knows what was going on since ‘45, arms were getting twisted; YET, Apple was able to make a strong case, which was Accepted and Welcomed by the World, and its Market share increased, despite companies like Huawei too were making incredible Inventions, but, it was also greatly marketed, that the DATA Servers in China are Riskier, compared to the Servers in US, which was also true!

One Question -> When The International Law Has Already Fallen With The Fall Of Venezuela, Where LEGALLY We Are Heading W.R.T. WIPO, TRIPS Etc. Treaties?

Take this Important Example: My Client begs and borrows money, to pay WIPO’s Fees, and now awaiting for a decision on a good faith, knowing that he / she has  not done anything wrong. But the person against whom my client has filed a Petition, belongs to a Nation, that has Bad Relations with My Client’s Nation; and the Person who has been appointed to decide the Award / Order, clearly takes instructions of that Pugnacious Nation who had / has appointed him / her, as that Nation has an Upper Hand in the Appointment. And eventually, the Award / Order comes against My Client, solely because of the above Reason! Then what is the Legality of WIPO, TRIPS etc., as these Institutions would be the next Target of the Pugnacious Beings!        

Not Everyone likes Fighting! Simple! Honestly, I Hate Guns! I’m not Pugnacious! And I don’t have that much Energy also; but even if I had, I would’ve channelized that for other purposes! So, should my sobriety, humbleness, humility, be considered as Weakness, and thus, I be attacked by those, in whose lives, ANGER works 24/7? This is exactly what happened to the International Law today! Those who can’t Converse -> Wreck! The curse of and for the Vernaculars!

What Should Prevail In The Age Of WWW? Global Prior Use, OR, Territorial Rights! Well That Depends!

 

Can Doctrine of Territoriality be Misused? Albeit should not! But time down the line it has been proven that such misuse of Doctrine of Territoriality always prevailed. And in my previous theories and blogs, I’ve suggested that a new guideline for domain name registrations too are needed, besides amending Article 16 of TRIPS w.r.t Doctrine of Territoriality in case of Trademarks, else, should radical ideas like let the Internet be Split and governed territorially henceforth be implemented? As then, there’s no point of one centralized concept of Internet, the way it is run today! And then, it would justify Doctrine of Territoriality! So, let the traffic then be directed, just alike our Passports used at the Borders for Vetting purposes! “Sire, You’re Travelling Alone? We Need To Vet Your Thoughts! Get A Wife, Get A Life! We Won’t Let You Come Alone Inside, So Steps You Must Abort!”

The Dilemma When Trademark Is Registered As Copyright, But, The Timelines Intersect?

So, when your artistic work is capable of being registered as design, then it cannot be registered as copyright, in case certain design protocols on it have already been applied! And when the artistic work is to be registered as copyright, the work which is also registered or is capable of being registered or used as a trademark, then you would require NOC from the trademark. Herein the dilemma originates, on which I had also written couple of blogs long back. Also, a trademark cannot be registered if it is protected by copyright.

The Dilemma Of TRIAL, And, The Paradoxical Situation Of Silent Version Res-Judicata!

 

Not My Expertise, of Course, YET, a proposal, as I sense a Paradoxical situation herein; and do correct me if I’m wrong! Because long back also, I made a proposal & introduced a Theory, as how the Legal System can be upgraded for quick redressals and decisions, without putting burden on anyone. That Link of my Blog is given in the end.

Tricky Question -> Should Processed Food Companies Be Using Labels Of GI (Geographical Indications) Related Goods & Products?

 

This one would be interesting to contemplate. Let’s say you’re a beverage manufacturing company. Now issue is you’re allowed to use the Washington Apples or Alphonso Mangoes; BUT, the problem comes that, even as a primary ingredient, the composition of those mangoes or apples are sold in diluted form; diluting the significance of GI only. Why?

Should You Be Using Your NAME, OR, SURNAME While Introducing A New Brand In Today’s ERA? My Suggestion -> Please Don’t!

The Promoters/Founders would always want their names to be remembered with the Companies / Brands they founded. Indeed! But that was possible back then in the Conservative Era, wherein only the names mattered! From a boutique Tailor, to Bakery, to a Mechanic etc. all ran on the Goodwill & Reputation Capital of any Surname or Name back then. But today, that runs on the Reputation Capital created by the Name of any Company or Brand!

NOW:

This is true that not all Brands excel! But once they pass a certain litmus test, then their names play an important role for Future M&As; especially in the case, wherein the Company’s Promoters/Founders at some point, have entangled themselves with some serious legal troubles!

Just An Opinion -> If In Late 90s OR Early/Mid 00, You Had Harvested / Scrapped / Mined DATA On The NET, The Way Today’s Few AI OR Web Search Companies Did; Then Honestly, Even A Search Notice Might’ve Been Issued Against You By The Likes Of Interpol, For Doing Such Acts!

 

Every second person is into AI today, diluting the whole context and concept, why and for what, AI was initially invented at the first place! BTW, how many are in Quantum Computing? Or deriving more powerful Chips? Hardly few! Because it’s difficult, and as in it, Free scrapping of DATA isn’t involved!

What was once done at the Retail Store inside, or, at the entrance of any MALL back then; now been executed on/by the APPs or Web Portals! But at least in the Former case, it was restricted to purchase experience(s) only!

Taking few leaves or flowers from a tree, plucking some fruits from it, once in a while, is of course acceptable and allowed! BUT, harvesting the entire tree, its fruits, flowers, and that too -> UNTIL Next Season, is altogether a different story! There was this quote in the mid-00, that DATA would be the New Gold one day! Now, how many governments / organizations would allow -> Open Gold, or, Museum Heists (IF DATA == GOLD)? None! So why in case of DATA alone?

The Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws Of Robotics”, And The Reasons Why They Eventually Can Be Broken By The Robots, Legally!

 

Asimov’s Three Laws Of Robotics!

1.     A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.     A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.     A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But, the first law itself can be divided further into two separate laws:

1.     A robot may not injure a human being; OR,

2.     Through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 

Paradox! And if read with the Second and Third Law, then they give sweeping Powers to the Robots! How?

Now, before moving forward, please understand that why I’ve included the DABUS case herein below, as eventually, a personhood would be legally granted to the Robots, once they are Commissioned in the PUBLIC Services, for taking actions / inactions on behalf of the Governments or Private Sectors. Just alike a Company!  

NOW:

Thanks To The Hon’ble Munich Court For Upholding The Fact That AI Companies Training Their Modules SANS Permission Is An Act Of Infringement!

 

The AI companies’ submissions that only USER is responsible for the infringement, as the USER entered a specific PROMPT, can be held a VALID argument, ONLY in case when the USER starts using that generated TEXT or IMAGES for Commercial purposes, and Not for personal or R&D activities or related to similar things which genuinely constitutes fair use or fair dealings. Of course, it is also possible that the USER deliberately enters such PROMPTs that any company’s watermark or logo is printed in the OUTPUT text or images. In such cases only, I solicited that the AI companies should disclose at least under confidentiality, what DATA and DATASET it used to train their AI modules, at least to the Hon’ble courts.

I Honestly Humbly Silently Remotely Passively & In Remorse -> Slightly Disagree With Observations Made In GETTY IMAGES VS STABILITY AI Case!

 

Take this example & please do correct me if I‘m (mis)interpreting anything wrongly. And before that, please know that I Support OPEN Source, But NOT the Quote -> Open For Thee Not For Me!

Let’s say there’s Subject ABC who steals Raw Materials from WALMART and later builds a new product from it! WALMART files a Complaint about the robbery. Now, Subject ABC contends that, it didn’t STORE any of the Raw materials herein at his place, as it was all bought from beyond the borders; and rather, only used the mediums to Create a New One; thus, the charge of robbery cannot be maintained. Let us say, some part of those raw materials are also perceivable in the newly created End Work, YET, now those have been transcribed into a new product considering it as a whole product, and further, rather not been Stored, and thus the case of stealing/robbery never arise. How far you would support this argument given by Subject ABC, because firstly, there’s no storage of the raw materials, and as the materials which were brought from beyond the border have been converted from one form or another! In any Museum Heist, would you first check where it was stored or taken from, or, just cease those stolen goods?   

The Dilemma Of Ex-Parte Orders?

 

So far, I’ve given extensive in-depth knowledge on IP, International IP Prosecutions, all at one place on my blogs, so much so that whether you’re a Startup, or, maybe an Experienced Professional looking forward to discover some Extensive Dilemmas in the IPs & International Prosecutions; then Nowhere Else in the World you will discover this kind of exposure, EXCEPT, Right Here on My Blogs, but, only if you have desire to read and not to watch. Now moving forward, the most important aspect in the IP is/are the -> Ex-Parte Order(s) (especially Ad-Interim / Perpetual) that the Plaintiffs get, and that too in just one hearing, without even notifying the Other Side who is Easily Reachable. How far this practice can be justified or not, such Dilemmas, I would be sharing in this Present Blog herein underneath.

How Article 33 Should Be Read! My Dilemma!

 

How Article 33(1) be read with Article 33(2) & (3), I’ll elucidate in the herein underneath paragraphs, as it has been wrongly read Globally.  

If any claim passes the litmus test of Article 33(1) sans hiccups, then it ought to have passed the litmus test of Article 33(2) & (3). But I’ve no idea why Article 33 (1) and its subsections (2), (3) are being intertwined WRONGLY! As the third part mentions about the obviousness to check inventive step; the second part mentions about the prior arts; and the first deals with the novelty + industrially applicability + inventive step; which according to me is a paradoxical contention. I’ll explain how!

Can The Laundering Of Domain Names Under The Ambit Of Ownership Ever Overrides The Rights Conferred To Act Against Cybersquatting?

 

The dilemma of the Domain Name Registrars is, they are contending for the Domain Name Ownership Rights, by bypassing the Rights conferred both by the WIPO and TRIPS regarding TMs to act against Cybersquatting/Typosquatting.

Let’s say in the 00s, I started hoarding the domain names, anticipating that a day, I would be able to sell it under the analogy of Future Options. These are not Specific Conceived Original domain names, but, are mere Dictionary words. Imagine, I bought in the 90s or 00, almost close to nothing these domain names. And then, eventually, when I saw, that the domain name empire thrived, I quoted the capriciously price to transfer, or, to sell them. But here is the conundrum-> That so far, I haven’t used these domain names, nor created any brand’s goodwill associated to any of these domain names. They just parked, lying unused, and I’ve collected these as Stamps.

Personality Rights, But Why Only For the Known, & Not For All?

 

Take this example, and we must take some inspiration from this law. Denmark has recently given Personality Rights to all of its Citizens in the age of Deepfakes! This is a welcome step wherein in few of my previous blogs, I called many top AI Companies in the World as alike somalian pirates! As the former looted on the Internet, whereas, the latter loot in the sea? The difference is: the former made/made Trillions of Dollars, whereas, the latter make far less!

An Act Of Treating Domain Names By Any Investor As Futures, Ought To Have Been Considered As An Act Of Hoarding!

 

My one question to Both ICANN & WIPO! What is the point of Typosquatting OR Cybersquatting, when the hoarding of the domain names, which are no more than being parked alone unused, even for a decade, yet, registrant holding the rights to own the same? Of-course, I was the only person who in my previous blog proposed a theory that, let the trademarks be also considered from the lens of copyrights. BUT, as long as that’s not the case, the act of hoarding of the domain names should be considered, if not illegal, but atleast, hoarding, and shouldn’t be allowed!

The Reason Why Discovery Is The Foundation Of An Invention!

 

There’s this myth of inventions being novel! Inventions wouldn’t happen unless discovered first. Examples: All the medicines today were first discovered in the Plants, Tress, Roots, and then, their steroidal compounds were extracted in the Labs, synthesized, and marketed via innovations! There’s nothing in the World called a Novel Invention. That’s why more than decade back, I coined the definition of Invention as -> Discovery++, i.e., one step ahead of Discovery. So first something is discovered, and then, derived and invented!