The European artificial intelligence strategy: implications and challenges for digital health

Intellectual property rights infringement is a growing concern in the age of e-commerce, where online marketplaces have become the primary platforms for buying and selling goods. As the popularity of e-commerce increases, so does the risk of counterfeit products, unauthorized use of trademarks, and other infringements on intellectual property rights. In response to this challenge, AI technologies have emerged as powerful tools to combat infringement on e-commerce platforms. This article sets out to explore the application of AI technologies in addressing intellectual property rights infringement on e-commerce marketplaces and the new challenges that arise as a result. The article explores the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on identifying and preventing infringements in e-commerce marketplaces. It delves into the use of automated algorithms and machine learning, highlighting their ability to improve efficiency and accuracy in infringement detection. However, the article also discusses the challenges associated with capturing nuanced infringements through AI technologies. Overall, the study sheds light on the evolving landscape of intellectual property rights protection in the context of e-commerce and emphasizes the significance of AI in addressing these challenges.

The investment activity is diverse and can be carried out with the use of intellectual property rights in accordance with the current international and Russian investment law. The article aims to identify the specifics of the application of intellectual property rights as investments and the implementation of intellectual investments, i.e. investments endowed into intellectual property rights. The objectives of the study are to consider the categories of an investment and object of investment activity, intellectual property, exclusive and other intellectual rights, as well as to analyze and determine the features of legal regulation of the activity in question at the international and national levels in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the systematic analysis with the use of formal legal, comparative and other research methods, it is concluded that investments as a property in a broad sense may include both exclusive and other non-personal intellectual property rights to the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of goods, works, services and enterprises. At the same time, they exclude intellectual property itself as a set of various types of intangible products, moral and other personal non-proprietary intellectual rights by virtue of their inalienable and non-transferable character. It is argued to be the same with respect to the object of investment activity, i.e. the property which the investment is endowed in and is capable to bring income to the investor in the future. Investments into such intellectual property rights can be called as intellectual investments.The legal regulation of investment activity with the use of intellectual property rights has a dual character (in the sense that it is carried out by different investment legislative acts with the similar subject of their regulation) and depends on the type of a particular object used. If intellectual property rights are invested in fixed capital, then they are to be recognized as capital investments and are governed by the Federal Law of February 25,1999 No. 39-FZ “On Investment Activity in the Russian Federation Carried out in the Form of Capital Investments”. If intellectual property rights are used as the object of investment activity, i.e. where investments are endowed in, such intellectual investments are subject to the regulation by the Law of the RSFSR of June 26, 1991 No. 1488-1 “On Investment Activity in the RSFSR”.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into electronic government (e-government) systems is revolutionizing public administration by enhancing efficiency and improving service delivery. However, the adoption of AI technologies in this context also raises complex legal challenges, particularly concerning intellectual property (IP) rights. Traditional IP laws, which were developed with human authorship in mind, struggle to accommodate the unique characteristics of AI-generated content. This article examines how AI is reshaping the legal framework for IP protection within e-government systems, highlighting the implications and challenges that arise from this technological shift. The primary aim of this study is to explore the role of AI in the formation of IP law frameworks within e-government, focusing on how current laws address—or fail to address—the challenges of AI-generated content. The methodology includes a comprehensive literature review, analysis of legislative documents, case studies, and a benchmarking analysis to compare approaches across jurisdictions. Additionally, expert interviews provide insights into practical considerations and emerging trends in the field. The results indicate that while some jurisdictions, such as the European Union, are actively adapting their IP laws to address AI's impact, most existing frameworks remain inadequate for protecting AI-generated works. Divergent approaches across countries reveal a lack of international harmonization, which complicates cross-border collaboration and legal enforcement. The analysis also highlights the importance of public-private partnerships and sector-specific IP protections, which can address the unique needs of different e-government applications. From a forward-looking perspective, the study underscores the need for flexible, AI-specific IP protections that promote innovation while safeguarding IP rights. International cooperation will be essential for establishing consistent standards, facilitating global e-government initiatives, and supporting the responsible use of AI in public services. By fostering a balanced and adaptive IP framework, policymakers and stakeholders can help build a resilient digital ecosystem that accommodates future advancements in AI technology.

The paper is devoted to the issues associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in intellectual property objects, in particular vaccines, in the context of fight against a pandemic. It is emphasized that AI technologies allow us to overcome similar problems at the national and international levels and to prevent their recurrence in the future. The author highlights that the most important requirements for observance of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens consolidated in regulatory acts and impossibility of their restriction in AI technologies must be supplemented with clear rules regulating the legal framework of artificial intelligence, including intellectual activity, and responsibility of developers and AI users. At the same time, the AI legal personality also needs to be thoroughly elaborated with the focus on providing a reasonable balance of rights, responsibilities and eligibility among developers, AI users, and other addressees entering into legal relationships involving artificial intelligence. A key aspect in the context of the legal regulation of the results of intellectual activity created entirely or partially by artificial intelligence is represented by the balance between the interests of rights holders and the public interests. Possible restrictions of rights of copyright holders as established in international instruments (Para 31 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) should be accepted as a harmonizing basis and adopted in national legal systems. At the same time, rights holders must be provided with appropriate guarantees of respect for their rights (In particular, the non-exclusive nature of the use of intellectual rights in the context of such restrictions, payment of reasonable remuneration, etc.).

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property share a synergistic connection, where the former helps the other. where Artificial intelligence has come out as an advancing powerful tool to solve complex problems in all areas, intellectual property still has some catching up to do. This research paper delves into the transformative influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the landscape of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). As advancements are being made in the field of AI technologies, giving rise to a whole new sector of innovation and growth. The development of various AI technologies and tools being used in various industries has raised novel challenges and opportunities for intellectual property protection. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the intersection between AI and IPR, and the applicability of AI in IP. The objectives of the study would be to understand the concept of IPR and AI along with existing challenges and issues in the field of AI related to IPR in India. The facts Figures and data collected from secondary and published sources like official websites of Intellectual Property India and from E journals magazines, and from other sites. The paper elucidates the role of AI in innovation and creativity, exploring how AI-generated content and inventions challenge traditional notions of authorship and inventorship. It further investigates the adequacy of existing IPR frameworks in addressing the unique attributes of AI-generated outputs and the evolving concept of ownership. Athorough analysis and discussion on existing issues and threats that AI developments are causing in the IPR policy framework. Additionally, the research scrutinizes the use of the recent AI system, CHATGPT. The study also delves into the viewpoints of global influential people related to AI development regulatory framework and laws in the field of IPR.

The problems faced by the open technological innovation of China’s new ICT (information and communications technology) industry under IoT (Internet of Things) technology are expected to be analyzed to improve the overall innovation ability and ensure the sustainable development of related industries. An evaluation model is constructed for open technological innovation in the IoT industry by analyzing the development of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) management, network strategy, and AI (artificial intelligence) technology under the development of IoT technology. Meanwhile, IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 and IBM SPSS Amos 19.0 are used to analyze the data information of 306 enterprises in the information technology industry. Besides, the proposed hypotheses are verified by factor analysis, multiple regression, and Back Propagation Neural Network. Finally, a new evaluation index system is constructed for open technological innovation in the new ICT industry. The development of IoT technology provides a primary guarantee for the open technological innovation of the new ICT industry, and the network strategy has the greatest influence on the internal knowledge output mode. Besides, the experimental results indicate that the IoT and artificial intelligence have a critical display value for the open technological innovation of the emerging ICT industry, with the highest weight ratio of 48.25%. This result demonstrates that artificial intelligence is positively correlated with the external input information. Intellectual property management is a crucial guarantee of open technology innovation in the ICT industry. The evaluation model of open technological innovation in the ICT industry has good performance through case analysis, with the highest accuracy of 91.25%. Therefore, the evaluation index system reported here can reflect the important factors affecting the development of innovative technology, which can provide a theoretical basis and practical value for improving the existing open technology innovation system.

Dominance in the market gives businesses many advantages, enabling them to change business dynamics and influence customer choices. This dominance, while used improperly, can damage clients via way of means of stifling competition and innovation. The distinct rights that intellectual property rights deliver authors and inventors over their works, on the alternative hand, lead them to critical equipment for selling innovation. Abuse of dominance and Intellectual Property rights are associated while dominant corporations make the most of their intellectual property rights to stifle competition. This article attempts to examines the feasible reasons of the subject matter, which includes inflated licensing charges, unwarranted litigation, and patent hold-up tactics. The interplay among abuse of dominance with intellectual property rights (IPR) marks a pivotal factor withinside the improvement of competition law. This article captures the essence of this complicated connection and affords a window into its complicated dynamics. It further attempts to emphasise the critical factor of convergence among those fields: the sensitive stability among selling innovation and retaining marketplace opposition receives disenchanted while dominant groups use their intellectual property rights to impede competition. Such abuse of IPR might also additionally take many unique forms, from extortionate licensing charges to pointless court cases meant to save your competition from coming into the marketplace. Case studies that function an examples from across the globe provide important insights into the rational consequences of intellectual property rights violations. The difficulties in finding the appropriate stability are demonstrated by notable instances such as the legal actions related to Qualcomm's SEP and Microsoft's antitrust actions in the EU. Emerging technologies in the virtual age, like as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, raises new concerns about supremacy and intellectual property rights. One example of an increasing burden in 5G technology is Standard-essential patents (SEPs). Using well-known case studies and international regulatory reactions, this article also attempts to provide a brief discussion of the issues and headaches associated with the abuse of dominance within the framework of intellectual property rights. Strict regulatory scrutiny is necessary to prevent dominant marketplace contributors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The conflict between preventing anti-competitive behaviour and promoting innovation through intellectual property rights safety is a fundamental dilemma. Finding a balance between the two needs is essential if one is to sell innovation and keep markets competitive. In this regard, the author attempts to highlight how crucial it is to handle the junction between rights to intellectual property and abuse of dominance in an appropriate manner. It draws attention to the necessity of prudent legislation that preserves innovative incentives while maintaining sincere competition. In order to fully utilize intellectual property rights for the goodness of society, it is imperative to achieve this delicate balance. In a global economic system that is rapidly changing, legislators, lawyers, corporations, and students must all comprehend and navigate the intricate relationship between abuse of power and intellectual property rights. This article lays the groundwork for additional investigation and debate in the article by offering a concise yet comprehensive synopsis of the key traits and problems in this intricate field.

The rendezvous between intellectual property rights and human rights has awakened slumbering legal spirits. Miscellaneous legal phenomena are now nestled in the intersection between intellectual property rights and human rights. However, the interplay between human rights and intellectual property rights is bizarrely characterized by amity and hostility. Naturally, therefore, situating indigenous intellectual property at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights becomes a daunting task. However, the dilemma is often overstated especially from the point of view of conventional intellectual property rights. At the outset of this Article, I shall be exploring the history and the development of the relationship between human rights and intellectual property rights. In the followng section, I shall be examining the extent to which intellectual property rights are entrenched in the international human rights instruments. The last section shall be devoted to exploring the phenomenon of locating indigenous peoples' rights at the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights and reflecting on the ensuing issues—an aspect which has seldom been considered in the existing literature.

Purpose: The general objective of this study was to explore Intellectual Property Rights in the era of Artificial Intelligence. Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive’s time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library. Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to Intellectual Property Rights in the era of Artificial Intelligence. Preliminary empirical review revealed that the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed the landscape of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), presenting both opportunities and challenges. It highlighted that traditional IP laws are increasingly inadequate to address the complexities introduced by AI-generated content, necessitating a rethinking of existing frameworks. The study emphasized the need for recognizing AI's role in the creation of new works and inventions and the importance of developing balanced approaches to protect both human and AI contributions. Ethical considerations, such as accountability, transparency, and fairness, were also deemed crucial in ensuring responsible AI use. Overall, the study called for a comprehensive and proactive approach to integrate AI into IPR, ensuring robust protections while fostering innovation. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The Technological Determinism Theory, Innovation Diffusion Theory and Legal Realism Theory may be used to anchor future studies on Intellectual Property Rights in the era of Artificial Intelligence. The study recommended revising existing IP laws to explicitly include AI-generated content and inventions, clarifying criteria for authorship and inventorship. It suggested expanding theoretical frameworks to accommodate AI contributions, emphasizing the collaborative nature of human and AI creativity. Practical measures, such as enhanced cybersecurity and legal safeguards for AI-generated trade secrets, were advised. Policy-wise, the study advocated for international cooperation to harmonize IP laws concerning AI. Developing ethical guidelines for responsible AI use and implementing education programs to inform stakeholders about AI and IP implications were also recommended. These measures aimed to create a balanced IP framework supporting innovation while protecting the rights of all stakeholders.

This paper studies the effects of R&D investments and subsequent acquisition activities of intellectual property rights such as patent rights by Korean firms globally and domestically in order to expand their global market. Using data from 2,074 Korean firms over the period between 2005 and 2014, and applying fixed effects panel regression models, we find that there is a positive effect of R&D investments on global competitiveness, measured by performance of corporate exports during the year and the following year. Moreover, the number of applications for domestic intellectual property rights has a positive relationship with global competitiveness just as in the case of R&D investments whereas that for overseas intellectual property rights applications shows a negative relationship during the same period. Surprisingly, such negative effects persist for some years both after the firms apply for intellectual property rights overseas and after they actually obtain intellectual property rights now both domestically and overseas. The positive roles of R&D investments and the number of applications for domestic intellectual property rights on their global competitiveness are mostly consistent with prior studies like Himmelberg and Peterson (1994) and Lee Jae-Deuk (2009), while aftermaths of such corporate activities for overseas intellectual property rights and acquisitions of intellectual property rights for some years after are not reported elsewhere and need further study.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts «intellectual property» and «right of intellectual property» and to the issue of the possibility of using them as equivalent concepts. The author considersthe features of a broad understanding of the concept of intellectual property, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. With this approach intellectual relations are only one of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which is subject to legal regulation only in part.Taking into account the above, the difference between the meanings of the concepts «intellectual property» (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and «intellectual property right» is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determinedon the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside of the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept «object of intellectual property rights» is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights.The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in sociophilosophical sense that satisfies the social, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense the object by its nature is a good for man; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statusesand roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept «intellectual property» as identical with the concept «intellectual property right» is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concept of «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right» are used in the legislation in the same sense and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights about such objects.

Technological developments raise the importance of intellectual and intangible production day by day. It is critical for the future of countries to adapting this change, as the share of human production has decreased and automation and artificial intelligence has extended. Countries make a great effort to claim rights for innovative products and to increase their competitiveness. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are the key for ownership of products, economic development and promoting innovative technologies. Therefore, most developed and developing economies prioritize the IPR and innovative production. While Türkiye was at a quite low level in IPR outputs at the beginning of the 2000s, a drastic performance increase was in the last 20 years. However, Türkiye’s performance is not adequate to reach the new IPR targets in the Turkish strategy documents including “11th Development Plan (2019-2023)” and “National Intellectual Property Rights Strategy Plan – Status Analysis Report”. The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has recently prioritized IPR via raising the awareness of education stakeholders, establishing monitoring mechanisms and setting targets, establishing cooperation with other stakeholders, and increasing the production capacity of educational institutions. Additionally, teacher training on IPR was intensified, R&D centers were established, and the IPR was prioritized in large-scale projects. The improvements provided solid results in a short time, and the number of IPR applications and registrations from MoNE institutions increased tremendously. Consequently, the steps of the MoNE show that concrete results can be achieved in a short time with dedicated and holistic IPR improvements. It is recommended to expand these efforts and increase cooperation in order for Türkiye to achieve its recent targets in IPR.

Intellectual Property: The Promise and Risk of Human Rights

In present times, intellectual property rights are the central focus of international economies and global market competitions among enterprises due to their important role in fostering cultural prosperity, economic development, and progress in the field of information technology. The advancement in information technology has made the field even more complicated as firms struggle to protect their copyrights in the face of online data explosion, dynamic e-commerce environment, and rising disruptive technologies such as Machine learning and Artificial Intelligence. On the other hand, plagiarism is on the rise in recent times. Students knowingly or unknowingly practice plagiarism daily to meet their stringent academic demands. Information Technology Tools encouraging plagiarism have further aggravated the problem. Intellectual property rights and plagiarism awareness are relatively weak even among scholars. Do intellectual property rights protection and existing plagiarism trends have any effect on the field of information technology research? This paper discusses intellectual property rights and plagiarism with the mindset of information technology research. The paper seeks to shed light on aspects of intellectual property rights and how they affect academic research, in the field of information technology. If after reading this paper a researcher, can take intellectual property rights and plagiarism seriously, then, this research would have achieved its desired outcome.

The Colour of Copyright