S1:Ep83 Intellectual Property, Ethics, and the Battle for AI-Generated Invention: Who Owns the Future?

As AI begins to invent, create, and design beyond human limits, a new frontier of ownership is emerging - one that could redefine the foundations of innovation, creativity, and value itself.

In this powerful episode of Digital Transformation & AI for Humans, host Emi Olausson Fourounjieva sits down with Eric Morehouse from Washington, USA. 

Eric is a Co-Founder of AiPi - a powerful solution where he has pioneered the development and implementation of innovation management services to help technology companies create, scale, and monetize intellectual property and other assets.

Eric is also a Founder and Partner of Whitestone Law, where his practice covers various aspects of corporate, commercial, and intellectual property law.

He frequently speaks in the US and internationally on a variety of issues, including all levels of patent prosecution and enforcement, as well as advising clients on raising funds, obtaining initial revenue, and scaling revenue.

Eric is a part of the Executive Diamond Group of the AI Game Changers Club - an elite tribe of visionary leaders redefining the rules and shaping the future of human–AI synergy.

💡 In this episode, you’ll discover:

• The biggest legal and ethical dilemmas around AI-generated inventions
• Why patents are not just protection tools but strategic growth drivers
• How global jurisdictions differ in their approach
• What happens when AI outpaces humans - and who gets credit
• The future of innovation governance and what it means for business leaders
• What we must unlearn about ownership to thrive in the AI era
• One piece of advice to business leaders on how to prepare for the coming battles over AI ownership, IP and innovation.

Whether you’re a founder, investor, innovator, or policymaker, this conversation will reshape how you think about IP, ethics, and the future of human-AI co-creation.

Tune in to uncover how the next decade of invention will be written — and who gets to sign it.

🔗 Connect with Eric Morehouse on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-morehouse-52554887/

🌏 https://aipisolutions.com/

Chapters

• 0:00 Welcome And Episode Setup
• 2:06 Eric’s Background And AIPI’s Mission
• 5:52 AI As Inventor: Law And Ethics
• 11:41 Patents As Growth Engines
• 18:24 Who Is The Inventor In AI Systems
• 23:12 Ethics, Guardrails, And Global Competition
• 28:30 Automation In Patents And New Roles
• 32:34 Jurisdictions And Law Firm Adoption Gaps
• 36:32 Future Governance And Ownership Models
• 41:08 Quantum, Generative Design, And Strategy
• 46:10 Unlearning The IP Silo
• 49:20 Practical Advice For Leaders And Closing

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:00

Hello and welcome to Digital Transformation and AI for Humans with your host Amy. In this podcast, we delve into how technology intersects with leadership, innovation, and most importantly, the human spirit. Each episode features visionary leaders who understand that at the heart of success is the human touch, nurturing a winning mindset, fostering emotional intelligence, and building resilient teams. My fantastic guest today is Eric Morehouse from Washington, United States. Let's dive deep into intellectual property, ethics, and the battle for AI-generated invention and explore who owns the future. Eric is a co-founder of AIPI, a powerful solution where he has pioneered the development and implementation of innovation management services to help technology companies create, scale, and monetize intellectual property and other assets. Eric is also a founder and partner of Whitestone Law, where his practice covers various aspects of corporate, commercial, and intellectual property law, including transactional and litigation-based issues. Eric's clients range from early stage technology startups to large multinationals. He frequently speaks in the US and internationally on a variety of issues, including all levels of patent prosecution and enforcement, such as effective patent litigation funding, creating IP strategies to support business goals, as well as advising clients on raising funds, obtaining initial revenue, and scaling revenue. I'm honored to have Eric as a part of the executive diamond circle of the AI Game Changers Club, an elite tribe of visionary leaders redefining the roles and shaping the future of human AI Synergy. Welcome, Eric. So great to have you here today.

SPEAKER_01: 2:04

Thank you. I'm excited to be uh here this morning and uh and talk about uh all these exciting uh exciting developments in the world.

SPEAKER_00: 2:12

Exciting ties. We are right in time with this conversation. Let's start the conversation and transform not just our technologies, but our ways of thinking and leading. If you are interested in connecting or collaborating, you can find more information in the description. And don't forget to subscribe for more powerful episodes. If you are a leader, business owner, or investor ready to adapt, thrive, and lead with clarity, purpose, and wisdom in the era of AI, I would love to invite you to learn more about the AI Game Changers, a global elite club for visionary trailblazers and change makers shaping the future. You can apply at the AIGamechangers.club. Eric, I would love to learn more about your journey, about your passions. Could you tell us more about yourself?

SPEAKER_01: 3:06

Yeah, absolutely. So I'm a career patent attorney by trade. I've been in private practice for over 30 years. Based on the uh experience I had for the first 20 years of my career, I ultimately formed a very different perspective on how RD and product development create new technologies to be commercialized, how those technologies are protected, and then also how to use those insights to benefit other elements of the business, whether it's helping to develop a better product or service, helping to set up other revenue streams through channel partners, providing investors with the insights that they need to determine whether or not to invest, how to arrive at appropriate company valuation. But then also, how do we exit? That's uh at least from the investor's perspective. They're not interested in staying in for 20 years. They want to exit in three to five years. How do we help ensure that happens and get the best deal to increase company valuation? So I set out on uh that goal about a dozen years ago and created AIPI and other entities that help us get to goal. We've got our own law school with our law firm, uh Dulles Law, which focuses on business, IP law, that sort of thing, to do the legal stuff. Uh, but then also created a number of funds to finance patent infringement litigations. And then to frankly answer the age-old question is why, you know, why get patents if you're not going to know when they're infringed, and then you don't have the finances to enforce it. So we do all that. We go through patents, we identify infringers, prove the infringement, and then we'll pay for the whole thing, and then split up the profits of the patent owner at the end of the day. But then in the middle is AIPI, where you know, we've been doing what we do, helping companies in a more holistic approach get to goal, figure out how to really protect their technologies so their tech doesn't get hijacked, but then also improve the RD and product development process, help set up other revenue streams and help get to exit, and and frankly provide the investors and the uh the C-level folks in the tech companies with the information they need to ultimately get to goal.

SPEAKER_00: 5:22

Sounds very promising because I can see in front of me so many business individuals and uh companies which are going to avoid so many expensive mistakes and probably stay in their business thanks to your solutions and uh to the collaboration with your company. Eric, you've spent decades at the forefront of intellectual property. When it comes to AI-generated inventions, what do you see as the most pressing legal and ethical challenges shaping the debate today?

SPEAKER_01: 6:03

Yeah, it's it's interesting. With, you know, ultimately, and it's funny, a number of years ago, uh, I'm in London a lot. I do a lot there, but I was in the uh, I think the the science museum, and there was a wonderful debate about what's going to happen when AI drafts a patent application on one side, and then AI on the other side examines the patent application to determine if it's patentable. And that's really just the tip of the iceberg. What happens when AI really starts inventing? I've seen that starting already, especially in the uh industries covering drug development. So if you know AI is developing new drugs and inventing new drugs, now who's the inventor? Well, the inventor can't it can't really be machine. It's the inventor the the folks who drafted the software, uh, maybe. But you know, for whatever reason folks aren't aren't really discussing that right now and all that, but that's something that maybe is a 2030s thing that'll that'll start being discussed. Possibly it's the uh it'll probably be the the corporate entity, you know, that owns the AI, and that's gonna ultimately uh commercialize the the drug. Uh but that that's one of the interesting ones is we need to change those laws. I mean, look, the original law started in the 18th, early 19th centuries, right? It didn't take into account uh a lot of things. In 1952 in the US, the laws were rewritten. And then again, you know, about a dozen years ago to take more into account software and things like that. But we'll see something else. The law will evolve and become more reasonable in the context of AI taking um, you know, a stronger role, you know, in inventing things. I think the good news for all of us is that the technology will continue to develop uh in all fields, whether it's healthcare, you know, or anything really. And all of us uh should be should be benefiting from those developments, but there needs to be some sort of rules. And the rules will need to change because the field will change not so much today. We'll start seeing probably in the mid-2030s, you know, things changing a bit. So probably maybe it's a 2040s thing when the rules are going to change to take that into account. Ultimately, and whether this is uh a 22nd century thing or or maybe it's a 2040s or 2050s thing, it's it's hard for me to predict. Patents will be viewed very differently and protections when when AI is just really driving most innovation. And companies don't need to invest a lot of resources in innovation. It'll start a debate. That that situation will start a debate as to do we really need to give a limited monopoly uh a right of exclusion for technological developments. I mean, remember, the only reason that we have patents is to provide a benefit to those companies that are investing, whether it's a million dollars or a billion dollars in new development. No companies would do that unless they received some limited right of exclusion, you know, so that they could make up for that cost, that RD cost, that development cost. And also remember, especially in pharma, I mean, there may be 20 different drugs that uh a pharma company develops and spends a billion dollars on, and maybe only one is useful. But AI may well change that. And so when the RD costs dramatically increase, we'll have to have a debate. You know, do we really need patents? But that's uh that's certainly not a debate that needs to happen anytime soon. But that's that's how I see how ethics evolving and the law evolving, take into account AI. Right now we're in kind of this really nice era where AI between now and the end of the decade is gonna be incrementally improving and improving, you know, RD development and that sort of thing. And the companies that don't use it are gonna fall behind. But that'll allow us to gear up and allow us to have a better sense as to when quantum computers arrive and how that really ramps up by a different magnitude, the technological development. It'll give us a better idea on how to deal with those. So so we don't just wake up one day and the world's completely different. It'll be changing, improving a bit. You know, what do they say? Every every seven months the um the power of AI doubles. And and that's I think a nice healthy rate where we can see ultimately where it's becoming, and then we can get ready to make those decisions in the 2030s that are going to be so important.

SPEAKER_00: 10:51

Truly challenging and exciting times because we are dealing with so many existential questions and dilemmas, and uh this is only the beginning. So I thought you are really brave to be here today to discuss this topic because I don't hear so many conversations around it yet. Most part of uh discussions are focusing on the potential and uh all the benefits of AI application, but this is something what we need to really highlight and put front and center because uh this is only the beginning, but uh this type of conversations is going to be increasingly more important and timely. Eric, many leaders assume patents are just about protection, but you often frame them as engines for growth. How should companies rethink IP strategy in the AI era, not just to defend, but to monetize and scale?

SPEAKER_01: 11:58

Yeah, that's that's a great question. And it's probably, I'd say, the central theme to what AIPI has been developing over the last dozen years. Instead of the traditional way of going about it, where you the business person tells the tech person, whether in RD or product development, invent a new widget. And then they, based on what they know, they invent that widget, they get to goal, and then ultimately invent it, they're ready to commercialize, then call a patent person in and uh do a quick clearance and patentability search. And then ultimately, if it does look like it's going to infringe others' patents, then you have to go back to the drawing board and change the design. Uh, and if there's something patentable, they typically will get a, you know, a standard patent out there that frankly 95% of that time provides minimal or no protection. The big change with AI, with what we've developed, and it's improving with new AI models that uh are coming out every few months, we're actually able to early in that process uh become involved, uh, give the RD folks and practicum the tools to know everything that's gone on before and that's going on, but do it communicate in a way that they can use. What we can do is we can show a landscape of patent rights and commercialization efforts in that sector of the industry and overlay that with what the tech folks are trying to accomplish. And in doing that, we're able to show the differentiators, uh, which, as you can imagine, the investors love. But with regard to the RD folks, it gives them a roadmap and ideas. We can identify white spaces, features, or implementing technologies they haven't thought of because oftentimes folks in the same field think alike. We can bring in a multidisciplinary crew and use AI to come up with new ideas and ideate and ultimately hopefully result in a better product or service that does not infringe other patents, but then also that is very protectable and come up with dozens of other embodiments, alternative ways of going about it, whether we are going to want to practice some of those possibly, or or others will. And then we can create an omnibus application that just one application that covers all those permutations and then get that on file early, and then uh ultimately file non-provisionals and continuation applications, claiming you know, one of those inventive concepts each, because you can get one patent and one invention, but they all get the benefits of that early filing date, and then using that as a living, flexible strategy, uh going back to that original application for 20 years. That's really the only way to ensure that uh the developed technology isn't either going to be hijacked or that competitors are gonna take easy designer rounds just to uh benefit from the technology that was developed, but just tweak it a slight way to just uh get around it. So if you do that, you create a strategic patent portfolio. And while we're creating it, we're giving ideas to RD and product development to improve that. We're actually scraping the web, finding, figuring out what competitors, potential uh future competitors are doing or what they find relevant, and then ultimately figuring out what entities are going to acquire that entity, because chances are that he's not gonna do an IPO, and then inventing past them and to create patents that'll be relevant to those acquiring entities to help improve the chance of acquisition and increasing company valuation. So it's a very holistic approach. Instead of, I guess a direct answer to your question, instead of having patents being a compartmentalized little niche that operates as a cost center, uh, doing it in a way that's integrated with other elements of the business and is improving other elements of the business because it really is uh using AI and the tools that we've developed, that it really provides a wealth of information to various aspects of any technology company. And this is technology agnostic. It works in healthcare, pharmabiotech, it works, you know, in material science, it works in electronics, software, really anything, even consumer products.

SPEAKER_00: 16:09

I really like that you have this agnostic and holistic approach so that you can virtually help anybody who truly needs your support in their business. So it is very important, and uh you are like a Swiss knife with your solutions, sounds really good. I'd like to take one step back and dive a little bit deeper into what you already mentioned, but uh it is so important to unfold that and talk about it a little bit more, and it's also my personal curiosity if AI systems can generate code molecules or designs at a scale no human can match, who should legally be considered the inventor, the programmer, the company, or the AI itself? What do you think about it? Will it be some kind of transformation where we see AI turning from being a tool as we consider it being today, into becoming some kind of entity of a different form?

SPEAKER_01: 17:21

Yeah, that's that's just it, isn't it? And ultimately will happen in the vast majority of cases, you won't need ownership of patents and technology and that sort of thing. Ultimately, in a hundred years and you know, in hopefully a better society, that won't be necessary. The hard part of your question is between now and then, you know, how are the laws? How how do we get there? How do we get there really? And I think the way it'll happen, and if we go back and we think about why patents exist, okay, why patents exist, and it is to provide some reason or advantage to the entity, the person or entity that is spending a lot of resources coming up with a new product, right? So uh a new product or start with some new technological development. Somebody's got to spend whether it's, you know, uh$100,000 or a billion dollars to come up with some new development. And that entity needs some benefit, right? That they need to get a limited right of exclusion over a certain period in the US, it's 20 years from the US filing day, so that they can charge more for that to make up for those RD costs, right? So I think conceptually, you know, who's the inventor, who gets the right of exclusion? If we look at it from a practical standpoint, it would be the entity that spent the money on the development. Okay. And so, you know, that's not AI because AI is just a thing, it's a tool, right? So AI wouldn't be the one that owns it. It may be inventing it, right? Um, in a way, but not doing that. So it's either the folks who wrote the software or the entity who ultimately paid for the software and is in the entity that's actually going to commercialize that doesn't want there to be competition. So I I think those are the entities that that should own the technology, or else it just doesn't, you know, the whole patent system doesn't make sense. Uh, just have to go to basics and and and public policy-wise. Why do we give these limited rights of exclusion? And it's so entities, you know, will pay money and then make the investment. Like I said, ultimately, with just AI doing everything, right? That'll be less of a significant issue in 100 years, probably. Although it may be the entity that builds a lab, right? Or that builds a factory to mass produce a certain type of medicine or things like that. In a short term, it should be the entity that uh that paid the money. Maybe it's to to create the software for drug discovery, or or um, or maybe it's the entity that commercializes it. In the short term, that's not probably going to change. I think that's a discussion we're gonna have in the mid-2030s, especially as we see some quantum computing systems or hybrid systems probably come out where technological development really starts going into like a hyperdrive mode. But remember, too, it's hard just to talk about AI. Okay. In general, somebody has to customize the AI to each function. So there needs to be a customization uh process. And you see that with Chat TPT or Cloud. You just start generally asking questions and all that. Um I mean, granted, it's early days with this sort of technology, which you're just a few years into it, uh, but you're the results aren't so great. And you don't know if it's, you know, real information or whether it's just making it up and it's not very targeted. The danger is it often looks like it's real information and it's not. It's supposed to look like it's a real answer, but it's it's not. You need to customize. There's a customization process, and that's one of the things that we do. We're able to get in there and and customize AI to allow companies to really take full advantage of it in a in a way that makes sense.

SPEAKER_00: 21:22

Customization is definitely interesting, but I also feel that we are going to hit very impactful twists where those discussions around who is going to own the invention and stand for it are going to shake the world because there are so many different options in this, and uh our understanding for it is changing as well. Some argue that AI is recognized as an inventor, it could undermine human creativity. So, Eric, I'm thinking about such examples. For example, we see AI-generated music, stars making millions. Others believe it could unlock unprecedented innovation. But where do you stand on that spectrum and how do you see it from the ethical perspective?

SPEAKER_01: 22:18

Yeah, the ethical perspective is really interesting. And again, it's about using AI responsibly and uh, you know, do it in a way to achieve goals that you know are reasonable. But it's hard to say. We don't want to use AI to circumvent uh existing laws or rules and that sort of thing. I want to do it in a way that provides us with advantages, you know, over competitors. And so we're not running a foul of monopolistic type process, you know, rules and stuff like that. But it's um yeah, it it it's it's interesting, and the laws need to evolve. You know, the laws need to evolve um so that AI is used responsibly and ethically. Uh those conversations are starting to happen now. My suspicion is at least uh, you know, North America and Europe will be united in those rules. It becomes a little dangerous when elements around the world are in a position where they need to compete, you see, China versus the West, going all out on AI. And if we know all the other sides are gonna do it and that sort of thing, I mean that's getting some sort of ethical rules so that we're all on the same playing field and all that, and remembering that we're all gonna, assuming this is all responsibly handled, we're all gonna benefit from it. It's gonna make everything better.

SPEAKER_00: 23:43

I agree, and this looks like a vicious circle. The eternal competition is just pushing us rushing into using those powerful technologies in the ways we probably shouldn't. But at the same time, we definitely need to discuss how we can reinvent the playground so that it becomes a more fair development of those technologies, beneficial for humanity, because now we are playing with fire.

SPEAKER_01: 24:17

Yeah, absolutely. Especially, you know, when you argue in the West, well, we need to take the guardrails off because in the East they're not. They're showing off carrels and look, they're pulling ahead of us because they have the guard ball, so we need to take our guardrails off. So yeah, it it's it's interesting, and the making sure that AI isn't used to create more dangerous pathogens and things like that. So there need to be rules, but the discussions are happening. I mean, the UN is kind of the place for it, and I think everybody, you know, uh around the uh all industrial civilizations, you know, all have the same concerns and are on the same page with it. It's just a matter of, you know, creating rules that make sense to everybody and then enforcing those rules. But you know, I'm sure it won't go perfectly according to plan, but I'm optimistic that everybody will get on the same page. And and the other aspect that that allows me to be somewhat optimistic is that the AI, the power of AI is is incrementally changing. And it'll incrementally change for the next five or six years into the early 2030s before we probably take a giant leap forward with uh hybrid quantum systems. And uh so it allows us, you know, five, six, seven years to have these debates and that sort of thing to gradually see things change. And don't lose sight of the fact that it really is improving, we need to make sure that the guardrails are on. A very similar situation was the 1940s with nuclear weapons. It's a similar sort of thing. It was a new technology. And and if folks, you know, if the world came together and uh created uh a system where nuclear weapons were not used and and nuclear power was generated in a more responsible way, generally around the world. Yeah, there are going to be accidents here or there, or bad things are gonna happen, but there certainly wasn't any uh any any really devastating world-destroying impact from nuclear weapons. So, you know, the uh AI is a lot more subtle and less scary than that. But I'm confident that reasonable folks around the world are having these discussions, we'll continue to have the discussions over the next half dozen years and and we'll get to a safe place. Because in the end, it's the greatest thing ever. I mean, it's it's gonna improve medicine and all aspects of life from self-driving cars. I recently bought a Tesla, drives itself, it's fantastic. It's improved my life, probably made me safer. I'm a terrible driver, and and so it's uh it's uh, you know, we will, you know, all of us will be experiencing those, you know, small benefits probably every year going forward.

SPEAKER_00: 26:57

For me, it's always the balance between convenience, safety, and uh our benefits, because we still need to keep ourselves aware, keep our critical thinking, keep us engaged into our real life, because the more processes and solutions are in place to make our life easier, the more we tend to just take it uh for granted and take a step back as a humanity. But hopefully this time it will help us to understand there is such an incredible potential with all those technologies. And I see how AI is developing us as humans and pushing us forward to move faster, understand better who we are, what we're doing, why we're doing it, and what what is next. So that is also an incredible opportunity for us to tap into our inner power and uh reconnect with each other in a different way, in a new way, and become more human, but time will show.

SPEAKER_01: 28:10

I agree. Yeah, I I couldn't agree more. And it's uh a few real-world examples as to how it's gonna change things, especially with business. I know a lot of folks are worried about unemployment, you know, it's gonna put a lot of folks out of business. I tend to think that AI is gonna allow businesses to be more efficient. You know, I graduated from university in the mid-1980s, and when computers first started coming in and all that, and frankly, they just made everything better through the 80s and 90s, made things more efficient. There weren't really mass layoffs or anything like that once computers came in. It just made everything better. And then there were there were folks who then managed the computers, and that's how so it created new industries and that sort of thing. I'm I'm confident that that's gonna continue with AI. It'll just make things a little more efficient and better. Like, as an example, in my world, the world of patents, drafting patent applications, patent prosecution is something that really mainly can be automated, right? It's it's not interesting work, it's it's kind of tedious and that that sort of thing, and typically is not done very well, at least if if the goal is to create patents that are going to be ultimately enforceable, right? But with AI taking over that aspect of it, now we can decide well, what patents should we get? Why are we getting patents? Generally, strategically, what are better embodiments, other ways to go about the same technology, frees folks up to make more important strategic decisions. How many patents should we get? What type of patents, where should we get them? So the focus becomes more on strategic issues than just the nuts and bolts of just drafting the applications, which is pretty much a lower skill level and rather tedious. So I think that's that's not to say it's gonna put a Those patent attorneys out of business, but they can, you know, make more business decisions and that sort of thing. So I see that as an improvement to the patent world, you know, that AI is providing now.

SPEAKER_00: 30:12

That's the beauty of it. And we see many improvements in different areas and in different verticals. However, we also need to keep in mind that we are responsible for the outcomes. We're responsible for how we are going to redefine our future and how far we are ready to go in letting artificial intelligence run in our lives. Because the difference between AI and the previous revolutions is huge, while those didn't really impact us on all the possible levels, but their impact was more in compartments, I would say, more uh focused on certain areas here. It covers absolutely everything. And uh we're already quite digital as creatures compared to the times where computers just appeared. So we are searching for other types of benefits as well, which are sometimes not really benefits when we think through Eric, I know you're traveling a lot, you're working with different countries, with your clients who are all over the world. How are different jurisdictions, the US, Europe, Asia, approaching the question of AI-generated IP, and what risks do global businesses face if laws diverge?

SPEAKER_01: 31:48

Yeah, there's uh those discussions are still in their early stages with regard to AI-generated patents. I think they're in their early stages because the main group that creates patents are law firms, patent law firms, folks like that, whether they be in Asia or or Europe or or North America. And those folks, strangely, uh you'd think they'd be the most technologically sophisticated, and they're not. They're the most antiquated. And remember, they bill by the hour. And so AI just isn't a natural answer for those folks. So what you see is the really interesting part are folks outside of law firms creating software tools to help kind of automate or improve the process. And it's a matter of, first of all, speeding it up, you know, speeding it up, drafting applications and that sort of thing. Uh, but also improving the patent applications, using them. And we use it as brainstorming documents as we draft patent applications. What are all the different shapes this thing could be? What are the different materials it could be? You know, what are other other embodiments that that could provide other advantages, you know, and that sort of thing? And providing more of a comprehensive disclosure that covers the heart of the invention, but then all the different applications of it. So interestingly, I think the folks drafting and prosecuting patent applications, uh, because that's dominated by the law firms, are not so much inclined to use those AI tools, which is counterintuitive because you think they'd be the most technologically sophisticated, but they're not. Uh, but then you see it giving rise to other, you know, other group tech companies that are saying, hey, there's a different way to get patents, and that's cheaper, faster, and then ultimately results in a much better patent application. And then I think ultimately what we'll see are the law firms, maybe they just end up just filing the applications, right? But then even that should be automated with entering all the inventor information in the old days. Law firms should charge a thousand or twelve hundred dollars for filing an application. That's something that I don't know, should cost about eighty dollars because it's uh it it should be uh it should be automated, and frankly, with less errors.

SPEAKER_00: 34:07

That's a great point. But we'll see how it will develop. And as you mentioned, exactly sometimes it is counterintuitive. What you believe should be one way turns out to be exactly the opposite. I'm thinking beyond patents, what new models of innovation governance do you believe will emerge to handle AI-driven creativity and invention in the coming decade?

SPEAKER_01: 34:35

Yeah, and and I think it comes down to the issue you initially brought up, like who's an inventor? You know, it's it's so much harder. And and one of the cardinal rules, at least in the US, of inventorship is it doesn't matter how it's invented, the methodology of invention, whether an inventor came out by a mistake, by an accident, uh, whether it was an Edison technique, just doing, trying different things, you know, one by one until something finally worked. You don't need that divine inspiration to show that something was invented. And I think that will be helpful basically with figuring out who an inventor is or what entity you know is the inventor. But as I said earlier, I think ultimately inventorship will be, and or at least ownership of the technology and the patents will be based on the entity that made the investment in it. Ultimately, I think that'll be the change in the law. I see most places in the world, it's already you don't focus on the individual inventor, you focus on the company uh paying that person's salary or otherwise spending resources to arrive at the new inventive aspect. So I think that'll just become more and more exaggerated and the rule everywhere in the world. Because that's the only thing that makes sense ultimately.

SPEAKER_00: 35:52

So today we have the question who owns the future in the topic? It means that money will own the future. The one who is paying is going to own it.

SPEAKER_01: 36:04

Yeah, I think so. I think, I think, I think so. Uh because that's the ultimate purpose of patents is to convince entities to make an investment, an investment in technology. And then they get protected for a while so they can get there, assuming it works, which is often it's one out of 10 times that works, uh, that they can harvest profits of it and then pay off their development costs. So I mean that that's the only reason for patents historically, and and um then my suspicion is the law will go that way. I I don't suspect significant debate on this for another decade, maybe till the mid-2030s. But again, the the problem or the issue isn't new. I've been saw this more than a decade ago about drug discovery software, and it's not so much uh a PhD in biotech. It's like the person who wrote the software is coming up with the invention. I mean, there are guardrails on it, though. There are guardrails with regard to biotech and pharma, because you've got to show that there's gotta be some data that actually works. So there's got to be some lab testing and things like that. So in that context, and maybe that will be an element of a law that's more enforced is does it really work? Right now, nobody really cares outside of biotech and pharma healthcare, unless it's like um a flying saucer or a perpetual motion machine, the patent offices don't require you to provide a working model. But maybe there'll be you know more of a focus on proving that the thing works, which would show that there's some investment made to actually commercializing it and that sort of thing. So maybe that's it, is more there's gotta be maybe the law will evolve so that in order to obtain patent rights, there needs to be more of a direct tie between the company making the investment and then also that's making investments actually commercialize it and bring it about and that sort of thing, as opposed to just somebody sitting in their living room with AI, just coming up with all these ideas through AI, and then filing a whole bunch of patent applications with no thought or you know, plan to actually commercialize it. And that's maybe one of the dangers to protect against, right? Is what does that do? That's not helping anything. Uh, just somebody coming up with ideas, filing patent applications willy-nilly all over the place, uh, just to kind of plant their flag in and to hold up commercialization efforts for 20 years and to hold an industry hostage, you know, for just using AI, coming up with some ideas that uh frankly others didn't because they were too busy commercializing it. So that's probably the biggest aspect of the law that may change to protect against. We want uh the entities who are actually interested in commercializing to get the advantage of the patent system so that they get their RD money back.

SPEAKER_00: 39:07

At the same time, I'm thinking sometimes it's not the best future for the humanity, the choices made by those entities which are having only their return on investment in mind and uh are based only on a commercial basis because uh humanity also needs something different, something that is really beneficial, not only in terms of uh financial growth and development, but also in terms of our development as human beings. And those two are coming in conflict from time to time. So it would be also nice to find some kind of regulation solutions which can keep in mind both of those and find more balance between them.

SPEAKER_01: 40:02

Yeah, I agree. I agree. It's um yeah, ultimately, and that's what the regulations are to prevent unbridled capitalism and and that sort of thing, but to do it in a way that's not destroying the environment and that is helping everybody and giving people the ability to make a living too, and keeping everybody employed. Yeah, I agree.

SPEAKER_00: 40:21

I like our way of looking into the future. So let's do it for another short while. Looking ahead. What future trends in AI innovation and IP from generative design to autonomous RD, do you believe will define the next wave of global business competition?

SPEAKER_01: 40:43

Yeah, I think we'll ease into it over the next uh next five or six years till the end of the decade with AI getting involved and helping to streamline, improve, make more efficient the RD process and that sort of thing. And then we'll have a giant leap, I think, you know, that'll continue that trend. But when hybrid quantum computing comes out, I think that it will make things more efficient, not just in RD, but then in the protections and helping to automate and streamline obtaining patents on those new discoveries, but doing it in a way where you don't have people, whether they're patent attorneys creating patents or RD folks creating, you know, new technologies. Uh, they're not bogged down in the tedious aspects of their jobs. Those tedious aspects are automated, and so folks are are able to focus more on the strategic aspects. Why are we getting these patents? And what type of features and new products or services do potential customers really want? You know, what advantages are given them and how is that is that can be perceived? So it it moves folks more into a strategic role, uh, which is very much similar as what happened in the 1980s and 90s when computers came to offices and it did that. But you know, who knows? You know, we'll we'll see how it goes. I think the next five or six years are easier to predict after that, with these developments in the 2030s with quantum type systems. That's harder. That's harder. And typically, too, you can kind of form a five or six year plan in a business, but beyond that, it's just there are too many unknowns and things that depend on things, depend on things, depend on things. That it's just uh, you know, it's difficult to really predict.

SPEAKER_00: 42:30

For real. And it was difficult even before. Today it becomes close to impossible, even for those who are investing into those technologies and are in control for many aspects of this development. I think they are up to surprises as well, without even mentioning everybody else who is navigating the unknown and things are speeding up as never before. At the same time, sometimes they bring uh such surprises as with uh AI adoption, where we see that 95% of those pilots are not bringing return on investment they were expected to bring. And at the same time, it is about us redefining how we evaluate success. We probably have to really redefine how we look at business, how we look at those key performance indicators and uh what we prioritize so that we can use those technologies as well for sustainable business growth. Eric, what is one thing about IP innovation and ownership that we all need to unlearn in order to thrive in this era?

SPEAKER_01: 43:52

Yeah, I I think that's that's an easy question to answer. You know, up till now, IP intellectual property patents mainly has been dealt in its own silo. Okay. But there's a lot of information that can be used and that we use to benefit other elements of a tech company, whether it be helping with RD and product development or setting up other revenue streams or setting up exit. And there's a lot of industry intelligence that can be gleaned for to help investors to de-risk investments in the private markets and that sort of thing. And and and there's a lot uh that can be used to figure out if anyone's infringing and and that sort of thing, and how to manage an enforcement campaign. So it's don't deal with patents, you know, as a silo. And and that's uh that's something that many companies do with not just patents, but with the legal department, with RD, with business development. Oftentimes they're working independently and there's not this pollinization through, but we've shown over the last 12 years how valuable information around tech and patents can be for holistically for a company, and we've made a whole business around it. And it's a business we're able to provide, you know, these advantages for not much a month, seven grand a month, eight grand a month, things like that for a company. And that includes patent filings and all that. So it can be done, and it can be done very inexpensively, but it's just not pursuing patents in the traditional way and not engaging the patent folks at the end of the RD process. You know, folks like us should be involved in the beginning in the middle of that process, and the process will end up with a better product or service.

SPEAKER_00: 45:38

That's a different framework, and uh it's great that you are reminding about those critical entrance points because when it's too late, it gets difficult to change something and redefine the outcomes. But in this conversation exactly, we are explaining why it is important to think about your strategy from the very beginning, and there are truly affordable ways to solve those potential problems to avoid the risks and get the success rate much higher. Eric, I've enjoyed today's conversation, and uh we've been talking about the past, the present, and the future. To wrap up, I would like to ask you if you could give one piece of advice to business leaders on how to prepare for the coming battles over AI ownership, IP and innovation. What would that be?

SPEAKER_01: 46:43

Yeah, that would be to uh to have someone in the organization or hire someone like us to manage integrating AI into various elements of the business. Don't just keep going on in the standard uh path, assuming it's gonna go away or you don't need it. It's it's the companies that, whatever the industry that effectively utilize AI, and it should not be expensive. In fact, it should ultimately save money, will pull ahead. The gaps between entities that use AI effectively in that industry and those that don't is just gonna keep widening and and that's not gonna change, regardless of what industry that that you're in. So embrace AI. You don't need to spend a lot of money to do it. Have someone as a member of your team, you know, tasked with that or hire us, you know, to come in and manage that process. But it's uh it's not expensive, and ultimately it will, in the short term, probably save money, but ultimately be necessary for uh survival, you know, in any competitive industry.

SPEAKER_00: 47:51

Brilliant. And it's really great that you not only shared your advice, but also came up with a solution to this problem. And I agree, it is about not only success factors, but also and mainly about survival in the future years as a business, as an entity. So thank you so much for being here with us today and sharing all your wisdom, your knowledge, your experience, and your insights. It's been a great pleasure having this conversation. Thank you so much, Eric.

SPEAKER_01: 48:29

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00: 48:31

Thank you for joining us on digital transformation and AI for humans. I'm Amy, and it was enriching to share this time with you. Remember, the core of any transformation lies in our human nature, how we think, feel, and connect with others. It is about enhancing our emotional intelligence, embracing a winning mindset, and leading with empathy and insight. Subscribe and stay tuned for more episodes where we uncover the latest trends in digital business and explore the human side of technology and leadership. If this conversation resonated with you and you are a visionary leader, business owner or investor ready to shape what's next, consider joining the AI Game Changers Club. You will find more information in the description. Until next time, keep nurturing your mind, fostering your connections, and leading with heart.