Florida A&M University - Florida State University College of Engineering
Florida State University College of LawNot a member yet
4903 research outputs found
Sort by
Artificial Intelligence Inventions
Get PDFIn the new technological era, artificial intelligence (AI) reigns supreme. With the assistance of AI systems, society is undergoing a radical transformation. AI may not only soon replace human labor in many industrial sectors, but as AI gains the power to generate greater inventions, it may also outsmart human inventors. How should patent law and policy adapt to the formidable challenges of the AI era? One of these challenges, addressed by patent offices and courts in 2020 and beyond, is whether AI inventorship should be recognized. The United States Patent and Trademark Office and European Patent Office declined to recognize the autonomous AI system DABUS as an inventor despite its two inventions. Courts in the United States and United Kingdom upheld these rulings. However, the Federal Court of Australia and the South African Patent Office steered patent law in the opposite direction, accepting DABUS as an inventor and thereby legally recognizing Al inventorship. This Article argues that these divergent approaches to determining the legal status of AI inventorship fail to address proper policy considerations central to shaping AI and patent law in service of the public interest. Applying broad-based, forward-looking policy considerations, this Article puts forward three legal principles for protecting ALgenerated inventions. The first principle draws on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to ascertain the sole patent proprietor of AI-generated inventions. It attempts to remove the unnecessary cost of protecting AI systems that are incapable of securing ownership of their inventions. The second principle considers the capacity to take legal responsibility as a means of evaluating whether AI systems should be recognized as inventors. It channels an ethos mandating that any grant of patent rights be conditioned on certain legal responsibilities. The third principle dictates that patent protection of AI-generated inventions must promote robustness of the public domain through the free flow of information and knowledge not subject to proprietary control. Together, these principles can better protect a wide range of public interests implicated in the patent protection of AI inventions
Adult Supervision? Appellate Review, Mandamus, and the Federal Rules in Multidistrict Litigation
Get PDFWhen a disaster of nationwide importance is dropped into the lap of a single federal judge as a multidistrict litigation (MDL), we expect a lot. The judge is supposed to efficiently manage the litigation as a massive aggregate, perhaps toward a workable resolution, while also still treating the cases transferred to the MDL as individual entities, respecting the rights and interests of the parties on both sides of the v. Doing so is a constant balancing act. Typically, and appropriately in our view, the MDL judge should be the one striking that balance day to day-with very limited interference. Indeed, that is how the MDL regime was designed. But increasingly it appears that defense-side interests would like more appellate review, largely in order to police supposedly lawless MDL judges. A prime example of this was the Sixth Circuit\u27s recent writ of mandamus against Judge Dan Polster in the gargantuan opioids MDL for, of all things, allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint after a deadline in a case management order. In this Essay, we argue that this decision was wrong-both narrowly, as a matter of law, and broadly, as a matter of judicial policy. What\u27s worse, the Sixth Circuit\u27s opinion-and its implication that MDL judges ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-has gone viral, finding its way into briefs, opinions, and political materials intended to hamper judicial discretion in MDL. Here, we intend to counter this dangerous precedent-and narrative
FSU Law Focus - 01/14/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Avlana Eisenberg selected for American Law Institute, Shawn Bayern selected for European Law Institute; FSU Law Among Nation\u27s Best for Quality of Life and Professors; Alum Profile: Melanie Griffin (\u2706); Student Profile: 3L Elias Jreijhttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1283/thumbnail.jp
Prospective Student Information Booklet (2021-22)
Get PDFBooklet containing curriculum and course information for future law students.https://ir.law.fsu.edu/prospective-student/1045/thumbnail.jp
Florida\u27s Removal of Safeguards for Defendants on Death-Row: Comparative Proportionality Review
Get PDFIncremental Change in Wills Adjudication
Get PDFProbate courts must decide which wills are valid and which are not. The traditional law provides courts a straightforward process to make these decisions. If the court determines that a will complies with certain formalities, then the will is valid, but if the court determines that a will does not comply, then it is invalid. This decisionmaking process has been criticized for being overly formalistic. While the traditional law is relatively easy to apply, it places greater importance on the process by which a testator executes a will than on the substance of the testator\u27s intent. Consequently, the traditional wills adjudication process invalidates noncompliant wills that are authentic expressions of testators\u27 intended estate plans. This criticism has led to major reforms being incorporated into the Uniform Probate Code that are designed to make the wills adjudication process more accurate in distinguishing authentic wills from inauthentic wills. Although no state has fully adopted the UPC\u27s comprehensive reform package, few states still cling wholeheartedly to the traditional law. Instead, policymakers in many states have implemented changes that take incremental steps away from the traditional law\u27s formalistic approach to wills adjudication. While the preference of state policymakers for incremental change, rather than for comprehensive reform, is clear, questions remain regarding the merits of these more modest approaches to reform. This Article seeks to better understand why state policymakers might favor partial rather than wholesale change to the wills adjudication process. More importantly, it analyzes whether some incremental changes are preferable to others. Ultimately, by providing a better understanding of the merits and possibilities of incremental change, this Article provides guidance to state policymakers who are wary of comprehensive reform
FSU Law Focus - 08/05/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: Fred Abbott at International Law Association\u27s Conference as co-chair of Global Health Law Committeehttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1209/thumbnail.jp
FSU Law Focus - 09/03/2022
Get PDFFrom the Dean: 2022 Alumni Awards; Justice Grosshans Meets with FSU Law Students; Alum Profile: Alex M. Sarsfield (\u2717); Student Profile: 3L Jasmine Adamshttps://ir.law.fsu.edu/fsu-law-focus/1095/thumbnail.jp