Unintentional Algorithmic Discrimination: How Artificial Intelligence Undermines Disparate Impact Jurisprudence

By: Vincent Calderon Artificial intelligence holds the capacity to revolutionize the economy by capturing efficiencies. These benefits, ostensibly, should pass down to consumers, thereby benefitting the general public. But the immense complexity of AI systems is bound to introduce legal hurdles for plaintiffs and frustrate our disparate impact jurisprudence. Specifically, demonstrating causation and proffering a less discriminatory alternative are herculean tasks for a plaintiff seeking to prove a disparate impact upon which legal relief may be granted. The courts have already begun to wrestle with these issues, primarily in the housing and employment sectors. With the rapid surge of AI systems, courts should expect further inquiry into how these programs interfere with our established antidiscrimination framework. This Note outlines how each step of a plaintiff’s successful disparate impact analysis is hindered by the opaque ways in which AI operates. This Note then proposes several policy reforms to mitigate these consequences. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 24 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 28

Can ChatGPT Keep a Secret? An Evaluation of the Applicability and Suitability of Trade Secrecy Protection for AI-Generated Inventions

By: Gina L. Campanelli The rising popularity of generative artificial intelligence has sparked questions around whether AI-generated inventions and works can be protected under current intellectual property regimes, and if so, how. Guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office and recent court cases shed some light on the applicability of copyright and patent protection to AI-generated products; namely “authors” and “inventors” are limited to natural persons. But further developments in copyright and patent law are still lagging behind generative-AI’s rapid growth. Trade secrecy emerges as the most viable path forward to protect AI-generated works and inventions because ownership of trade secrets is not limited to natural persons. But trade secrecy has its drawbacks too, primarily inadequate protection outside of misappropriation. Further, trade secrecy precludes disclosure, which hinders greater scientific development and progress. This Note examines the suitability and applicability of copyright, patent, and trade secret protection for AI-generated works and inventions and posits alternative protection schemes. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 24 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1

Viagra Did Not Work, but Michael Jordan Still Made It: Trademark Policy Toward the Translation of Foreign Marks in China

By: Jyh-An Lee & LiLi Yang Most multinational enterprises (MNEs) register their original trademarks in Roman letters in China upon entering the Chinese market. However, many fail to develop and register corresponding Chinese marks because they do not understand local culture and consumers, overvalue consumers’ presumed brand loyalty, or neglect the accompanying trademark issues. This failure enables trademark squatters to register and hold the Chinese marks for ransom or local competitors to free ride on foreign marks using their Chinese translations or transliterations. This Article first introduces the complexity of translating a foreign mark into Chinese, which concerns complex linguistic, cultural, and business challenges. Based on recent court decisions, this Article systematically analyzes the legal basis on which an MNE may claim to protect the Chinese equivalent of its original trademarks. This Article then provides essential business and legal implications of China’s trademark policy toward translating foreign-language marks into Chinese.Download Full Article (PDF)Cite: 20 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 36