433403

Seeking a Fair Patent System

by Policy

By Stephanie Martz & Chris Mohr

The article can be found on realclearmarkets.com. Access it by following this link

As representatives of a broad coalition of diverse American businesses, from Main Street retail shops to technology companies, we supported the patent reforms made by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). In the AIA, Congress created the cost-effective, efficient, and expert process called Inter Partes Review (IPR) for addressing invalid patents and the abusive patent litigation that results from them. United for Patent Reform (UFPR) advocates for a patent system that enhances patent quality, advances meaningful innovation, and protects legitimate American businesses from abusive patent litigation, and we have supported the IPR process as critical to those goals.

For this reason, we are deeply concerned with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) harmful proposals to weaken IPR. Many of the rules proposed by the USPTO undermine IPR’s core function to correct the grant of invalid patents, which flies in the face of the AIA. The proposed rules contradict this intent in numerous ways, including things as fundamental as changing the standard for the IPR process and placing restrictions on who can use it. Former Senator Leahy, an author of the AIA itself, recently wrote that “Not only do USPTO rules clearly violate the statute, but they would also reverse so much of the economic progress we’ve made as a result of the AIA,” and that “American manufacturers and consumers would shoulder the burden.”

That is why it is critical that the IPR process remains the efficient, cost-effective, and expert tool that it is for addressing errors made by the Patent Office, for the sake of the more than 90 million U.S. employees represented by UFPR’s members and for the health of our patent system. The USPTO’s proposals would do the opposite – reduce patent quality, stifle innovation, and bring back the days of rampant litigation on invalid patents.

Abusive patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs), sometimes known as patent trolls, has been a persistent problem for years, with UFPR members routinely targeted. NPEs specifically prey on businesses lacking the resources to engage in lengthy patent litigation, seeking easy settlements regardless of the validity of their patent or the merits of their claims. In an example that is far too common, one NPE sued 74 businesses across 23 states for using technology that allowed them to print over a network, including many small, family-owned commercial printing shops.

The IPR process has proven invaluable for addressing abuses like this. By utilizing IPR, businesses have successfully challenged bad patents directly asserted against them or have benefited from their suppliers and service providers doing so on their behalf. For instance, in the case where an NPE went after businesses across the country for printing over a network, several commercial printer companies used the IPR process to have the USPTO review the patent in question, and it was found to be invalid. In another case where thousands of small businesses were threatened with patent litigation over scan-to-email technology, the scanner manufacturers used the IPR process to invalidate the patent, allowing these businesses to restore their customers’ access to this technology. These success stories highlight the importance of a robust IPR process in safeguarding businesses that can’t withstand the distraction or expense of full-scale patent litigation.

A recent study confirms the importance of the IPR process to American businesses and consumers. The study shows that IPR has passed on billions in direct cost savings to businesses which has contributed significantly to the U.S. economy, spurring $3 billion in gross product and creating 13,500 job-years of employment. This is why proposals like those the USPTO is making now fly in the face of what’s best for business. By weakening IPR, the proposed rules will bring about more litigation and unjust settlements, reducing resources available for innovation needed to develop new products and services and to create jobs.

The USPTO’s proposed changes to the IPR process would undermine patent quality, hinder innovation, and burden legitimate businesses with unwarranted litigation and settlement costs. We cannot let this happen. To uphold the integrity of the patent system and promote economic growth, it is imperative we protect and strengthen the IPR process. Let’s move forward – not backward. By doing so, we can ensure a fair and effective patent system that supports all American businesses.

Stephanie Martz and Chris Mohr are Co-Chairs of United for Patent Reform. 

‘Moderation Remains Key for Us’; Graham Uses AI to Build a Better Comments Page

by Media

MediaNews Group has shut down all of its comment sections. And earlier this year, Gannett ended online commenting for most of its news sites. B2B media organizations have gone up and down over the years with their comments sections. But done right, those sections can bring engagement, audience and even revenue. Enter AI and Graham Media Group’s First Dibs Comment Bot.

One of my favorite sections of The Washington Post is their weekly Free For All comments page. This past Saturday, comments included not spelling out acronyms in their first use, ignoring Canada Day, National Geographic’s layoffs, and calling the late Alan Arkin’s character (Yossarian) in Catch 22 “paranoid” in his obituary. (“The obituary had inadvertently reversed the entire meaning of the book and movie.”)

But this Free For All is obviously closely guarded. While comments sections can be positive and conversation-enhancing—especially on webinars—they can also become unruly and time-heavy to moderate. Looking at past articles on the topic this morning, I found adjectives like “toxic,” “attacks,” “vile” and “personalized.”

“It’s something we’re all grappling with,” Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory said last year on NiemanLab, but “there is an expectation that people should have a say.” Added Gabriel Escobar, editor and VP of the Inquirer: “Engagement and the time that people spend on the site is an important digital metric, and if people are allowed to comment, they’re obviously on the site longer.”

While more places shut down their comments, one entity is working hard to continue their comments safely and successfully. And they want to do it through AI and ChatGPT. Say hi to the First Dibs Comment Bot.

Graham Media Group’s Dustin Block recently gave a presentation of their First Dibs project at the AI & Local News Challenge Demo Day sponsored by NYC Media Lab. Here are some details from that video presentation and Sophie Culpepper’s story on NiemanLab.

Now is the time. Comments can be valuable. The “cookie-pocalypse” is here, making first-party data critical for publishers. “Commenting is a huge driver for user registration and on-site registration [for us],” Block said. [But] without quality guidance, “users disengage because of lack of quality discourse. And getting talent to participate in comments… It has to be safe and quality conversation.”

It’s nicer than you might think. The First Dibs Comment Bot posts the first comment on stories to guide conversations, grow participation and drive users deeper into engagement funnels, Block said. It’s crafted just to post questions and be friendly. It finds the theme of the story and asks an open-minded and positive question making for consistently good prompts. Including “please” in a prompt for a question “substantially changed the results,” Culpepper wrote, “and explicitly asking the AI to keep questions positive ‘really helps the conversation.’”

It loses the “hallucinatory.” One of the obvious criticisms about ChatGPT is that it can sometimes seemingly make stuff up. “Hallucinatory” has been the most popular word to describe these misadventures. But because it is being told here to just phrase questions, not statements, “it’s less prone to hallucination.” “It hasn’t asserted any facts, so it hasn’t given any wrong information,” Michael Newman, Graham’s director of transformation, said. (He would have fit perfectly in my story on interesting job titles last week.) No hallucinations or missteps so far.

It treats sensitive stories well. “We’re very concerned about sensitive stories,” Block said. “We didn’t think the bot would handle that well. We’ve been a little surprised at how well it does.” On a sensitive story about a heroin overdose, the bot asked: “What steps should law enforcement take to ensure the safety of both officers and individuals who may be experiencing a drug overdose during an arrest?” “Not bad—probably better than our human editors would do, certainly faster,” Block said. “It has repeatedly been able to take these difficult stories and at least not be wildly out of line for what we’re looking for,” and do it much faster.

You still need people. “Moderation remains key for us,” Block said. “The bot would be moderated [by our] external moderation team.” Feedback has also “led to a practice of asking the bot to generate five different prompts, instead of just one,” Culpepper writes, “and allowing the writer to pick the prompt they like best, Newman said. He’s interested to see whether this tweak ultimately helps drive more human engagement.”

Revenue is the goal. Comments mean engagement, and engagement can mean dollars. Graham Media Group wants to grow logged-in users by 10%, doubling the average revenue per user. The same goes for their user registrations. In the Q&A, Block emphasized how comments can mean much more to their “logged-in users,” as opposed to those just visiting. And that can also mean dollars.

Time will tell. First Dibs is set to go live in August and will be well-looked after. “We don’t want to put this out in the world if it’s going to do something that even offends the person who’s reviewing it before it posts up on the site,” Newman said.

 

Copy of Media Library (3)

Leading AI Companies and White House Commit to Advancing Responsible AI for a Safer Future

by Policy

The following statement can be attributed to Paul Lekas, Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association.

We congratulate the White House and leading AI companies – including SIIA members Amazon, Google and Meta – on the commitments announced today to manage the risks posted by AI.  We agree that in order for AI to reach its potential to improve American lives, it must be developed in a way that ensures safety, security and trustworthiness. The commitments made by these  companies set the bar for the AI ecosystem and the business of information, immediately moving the United States to the front of the global effort to advance responsible AI.

Copy of Media Library (1)

Proposed Merger Guidelines: A Departure from Antitrust Principles Threatening Consumer Welfare and Innovation in the U.S. Economy

by Policy

The following statement can be attributed to Paul Lekas, Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy and Morten Skroejer, Senior Director for Technology Competition Policy, Software & Information Industry Association.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) yesterday published new proposed guidelines for horizontal and vertical mergers. The proposal represents a radical shift in how the two enforcement agencies aim to evaluate mergers. We are concerned that the proposed guidelines will create confusion, unpredictability, and diverge from years of jurisprudence, with a significant negative effect on the business of information and the U.S. innovation environment.

We agree with the White House that “[c]ompetition is imperative to the functioning of product, service, and labor markets.” It is in this spirit that the proposed guidelines’ departure from the lodestar of antitrust enforcement – consumer welfare – in favor of an untested mix of factors, including “thirteen principles that the agencies may use when determining whether a merger is unlawfully anticompetitive under the antitrust laws” marks a venture into the unknown that will undoubtedly have negative effects on consumers and businesses alike.

Indeed, the approach outlined by the FTC and DOJ appears to disregard decades of judicial precedent and, in proposing an approach to regulate “the modern economy,” draws selectively from case law, predominantly from the 1960s and 1970s.

The credibility of the merger guidelines will ultimately rest on the courts’ willingness to view them as a well-balanced explanation of existing law and attendant agency practice, rather than a political exercise. Courts are not bound by the merger guidelines, and we are concerned they will look with skepticism on a wholesale revision that disregards decades of precedent.

It seems odd that the DOJ and the FTC would double down on an enforcement strategy that, to date, has very little to show for it. Just last week, the FTC was told by a federal judge that its last-minute attempt to block a high-profile merger had no chance of success. In a recent legal webinar discussing regulatory overreach, one panelist highlighted how industries adapting to modern consumer demands, such as those offering a gutes Casino ohne Verifizierung, have managed to thrive without overly burdensome regulations. These platforms operate with efficiency and transparency, addressing consumer privacy concerns while maintaining compliance with existing laws. The panelist argued that such examples demonstrate the need for regulatory frameworks that encourage innovation rather than stifle it. Add to this, these proposed changes in merger enforcement come directly on the heels of another proposal that would substantially change the premerger notification regime.

Periodic reviews of the efficacy of agency policies is prudent. But to the extent that merger enforcement has been lacking, a dubious proposition, there is no reason to think that revising the merger guidelines would change that. And this is to say nothing of the impact that bad merger guidance is likely to have on the economy more broadly. The DOJ and the FTC would do well to heed the old adage that changing too much at once rarely ends well. 

Summary Blueprint for Government Oversight and Regulation of AI.FINAL (Instagram Post (Square)) (1)

SIIA’s Blueprint for AI Regulation

by Policy

The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) has consistently advocated for the involvement of the U.S. government in fostering the responsible implementation of artificial intelligence (AI).

In order to mitigate risks during the pre-deployment phase, SIIA recommends that the government establish guidelines and tailored requirements for AI systems that pose significant safety and rights concerns. Additionally, SIIA emphasizes the importance of advancing AI innovation, enhancing government adoption, and fostering strong public-private collaboration to effectively address the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by AI.

By taking the following steps, SIIA believes we can enhance oversight and regulation of AI:

  1. Establish Foundational Principles: AI policy should be based on a risk-based approach, ensuring that advancements in technology align with principles of responsibility, ethics, and trustworthiness. Responsible AI governance should go hand in hand with innovation, recognizing that fostering responsible practices is essential for the development and deployment of AI. To achieve this, effective AI policy demands a novel model of public-private collaboration to promote the development of sound governance and ensure that AI benefits society as a whole.

2. Advance a Framework for High-Risk AI System Oversight: A federal law ought to establish a foundational framework for overseeing high-risk AI systems, with a precise definition of what constitutes “high risk.” The emphasis of the regulation should be on effective oversight rather than strict enforcement. To achieve this, relying on the expertise of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AIRMF) would be beneficial.

3. Advance a Sector-Based Approach for High-Risk AI System Oversight:  To enhance governance and accountability, Congress should establish formal oversight responsibility for high-risk systems within crucial agencies. These key agencies must define the criteria for identifying high-risk systems within their respective domains. Additionally, a collaborative interagency coordination mechanism should be established to oversee the implementation and regulation of artificial intelligence. Instead of creating a new regulatory agency specifically for digital matters, existing structures should be leveraged. Lastly, it is crucial to explore and implement tailored, use-based regulations for general-purpose AI systems to ensure responsible and effective deployment.

4. Appropriate Funds for AI Oversight and Government-Led AI Innovation: Allocate adequate funding to oversight agencies responsible for regulating AI technologies to ensure they can effectively monitor and govern AI advancements. Simultaneously, commit resources to support fundamental AI research and the development of practical AI applications, fostering innovation and responsible implementation of AI across various sectors.

5. Promote Domestic and International Regulatory Alignment: It is crucial for federal law to take precedence over state law in governing AI oversight. Additionally, there should be continuous endeavors to foster global cooperation and coordination in the development of AI standards and regulations.

6. Reinforce a Tech-Neutral Approach to Intellectual Property: Copyright and patent laws offer robust frameworks to tackle the challenges posed by generative AI.

Full Deep Dive Here