Sector Focus
Legal Sector Focus The latest news from the sectors that matter to business David Coombes: Rights for robots?
What are the rights of AI?
Recently there have been several stories about how we are all at risk of being replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI), writes David Combes, associate patent attorney at Barker Brettell. But away from the attention-
grabbing headlines, what impact will the explosion in AI have on Intellectual Property (IP) rights and will those rights lie with the innovators or the newly created artificial human expert? Because AI is a complex area,
let’s focus on the current IP surrounding the expert system: a computer system that seeks to emulate the decision making of a human expert. Here the same rules on what may be patented with regard to computer programmes will be applied to expert systems. Different jurisdictions have
different rules, but in general the European Patent Office (EPO) can be used as a ‘gold standard’ for patentability: if the invention clears the EPO’s requirements, it is likely to be allowable in Japan, China and the US. Expert systems that are
applied in a technical field are likely to be patentable, provided that the features that make them work are novel and inventive. For an inventive step the EPO requires that a claimed invention achieves a technical effect. Anything ‘non- technical’ is excluded from contributing to inventive step. The UK has a different
approach than the EPO for handling exactly the same statutory exclusions. In contrast with the EPO, which has a low bar for statutory subject matter, but excludes ‘non-technical’ features from contributing to inventive step, the UK treats the statutory exclusions and inventive step separately. Clearly this area of innovation
is one that all IP specialists are watching very closely.
46 CHAMBERLINK June 2017
Landmark victory for personal injury lawyer
A leading Birmingham personal injury solicitor has scored a landmark victory in the way damages are awarded to people who face the consequences of serious injuries. Philip Edwards, of law firm
Clarke Willmott, took part in a consultation exercise by the Ministry of Justice over the issue, which was to consider the level at which the ‘discount rate’ was set. The rate had been set at 2.5 per
cent since 2001 but following the review, the Lord Chancellor announced that the rate would be changed to 0.75 per cent, which means that damages awarded as a lump sum would be increased. During the consultation, Mr
Edwards found that one of the key questions being asked by the Ministry of Justice suggested that accident victims were already being over-compensated for their injuries. He made an immediate
complaint, and the question was withdrawn. Mr Edwards said: “I was shocked and concerned for my client group when I read the way in which the question had been put. The question, as framed, seemed to have reached a conclusion and was calling for evidence to support it, when of course the process should be the other way round. “This is quite apart from the fact
that not only is that statement disputed, those of us who represent claimants consider that the evidence shows that for many years injured people have been undercompensated and not received proportionate damages to enable them to meet their needs.”
Freeths celebrate turnover increase
Freeths LLP have announced another consecutive year of growth, with turnover increasing to £72m. The Birmingham office of Freeths is now their third
largest by turnover and has had a number of recent senior staff hires including Louise Wilson as a dispute resolution partner, Jason Richards as a commercial partner and John Craig as senior immigration manager. With 11 offices across the UK, Freeths have a presence in the majority of the major cities. Staff numbers have increased from 683 in 2015 to a current total of 784. The firm have a client base ranging from local
businesses and public sector organisations to national and international household names. Richard Beverley, managing partner of the Birmingham office, said: “Our continued growth, locally and nationally, notwithstanding the challenges in the economy, is testament to the hard work of our staff. “It has been a busy year of growth across the firm
and we work hard as a team to deliver the results our clients want, whilst being in the fortunate position to also be able to invest time and resource to the local community and charity initiatives.”
Mr Edwards was pleased with
the eventual changes made by the review. He said: “I believe the evidence shows that until the recent change in the rate, the discount rate did not reflect prevailing conditions, meaning that injured people were at risk of being seriously undercompensated. “The principle of the law of
compensation for people who have been seriously injured through someone else’s fault is that they should receive damages that put them, as far as money can, in the position they would have been in had they never been injured.
‘Evidence shows that for many years injured people have been undercompensated’
“This ‘compensatory’ principle
means that the injured victim will get no more and no less than what is needed to provide for their lifetime losses, and is in stark contrast to other jurisdictions where damages can be massively inflated as a way of punishing the wrongdoer.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
