To address my first thought, Disney’s various efforts to extend copyright protection, arguably, for their interests in protecting and controlling their copyright assets like Mickey Mouse reminds me of how supporting certain theories as a justification for IP law can be used to further specific goals. Disney’s actions remind me of an idea in Gillian K. Hadfield’s (“Hadfield”) “The Economics of Copyright: An Historical Perspective.” Hadfield, on p. 9, explained that publishers’ supported the creation of a statute based on a natural rights theory (like theories developed by Kant and Locke) to mimic the private copyright publishers enjoyed before because these theories support an extended duration of protection.

To address my second thought, Disney’s use of trademark law to protect Mickey Mouse reminds me how other industries and actors have used trademark law when copyright law leaves a gap. For example, in fashion, it is often hard to gain protection for fashion designs (not just pictorial, graphic and sculptural elements) through IP law in Canada and the United States. If able, brands often then protect design silhouettes through trade dress such as the Birkin Bag (CIPO Application number 1414879). In addition, Rosie Giannone, in her IPilogue article, “Who’s Laughing Now? EUIPO Board of Appeal Rules that Banksy Can Keep his Trademark and Anonymity Too”, wrote about how Banksy filed an EU trademark claim to remain anonymous because copyright requires artists to discover their identity.

Overall, it is very interesting to see how much effort Disney put into controlling Mickey Mouse and begs the question: what about the societal interest in a robust public domain?

In the spirit of innovation and accessibility, some AI models were directed to scrap artwork without obtaining artists’ consent. Open-source AI’s accessibility may result in some consumers using AI to generate a piece mimicking an artist’s style rather than commissioning artwork, which can threaten artists’ livelihood. One potential recourse for artists involves reframing the narrative. Instead of viewing AI as a competitor, artists could use open-source AI-generated art. Take, for example, Colorado’s State Fair art competition, where Jason M. Allen won by submitting an AI-generated artwork.

A method of diagnosing whether a human subject is at risk for developing cancer, comprising:
a. ([measuring the level of X in a biological sample] vs [receiving a report summarizing the level of X in a
sample]) from the subject; and
b. comparing said level to the level of a non-cancerous reference sample, wherein an increase in the level of
X relative to said reference indicates the subject is at risk for cancer.

CIPO indicates that a patent measuring the level of X is patentable while a process that takes as an input the measurement of X is not patentable, on the grounds that in the latter (unpatentable) claim the “data about the level of X is not provided by an element that physically measures the level. Instead, data about the level of X is provided by an element involving receiving a report summarizing the subject's level of X…In order to be found patentable, the actual invention must have physical existence or manifest a discernible physical effect or change.”

I can see why this would lead to confusion. Hopefully it gets clarified a bit – if not from this bill, then as we figure out how to deal with other non-physical inventions. I also agree that the role of patents in the biotech space might be overstated - there seems to be plenty of motivation in the innovation sector to develop these types of technologies already and introducing patent protection might end up as more of a hindrance for the start-up/mid-size innovators.

I look forward to new developments in this space. Again, fantastic post!