Topics In Demand
Notification
New

No notification found.

The Great Intellectual Property Wars: Piracy, Tech & AI
The Great Intellectual Property Wars: Piracy, Tech & AI

April 7, 2025

29

0

The 1990s and early 2000s saw one of history’s most consequential intellectual property gray zones: the rampant, quasi-tolerated piracy of Microsoft 365's Windows and Office. In China, a 2011 BSA Global Software Survey estimated a 77% piracy rate; in Russia, it was 62%. Some analysts suggested even higher figures—particularly in consumer markets—but Microsoft’s strategic forbearance allowed unlicensed use to cement its ecosystem dominance before later enforcing compliance via mechanisms like Windows Genuine Advantage (2005).

This was neither an anomaly nor an accident. From Napster’s court-ordered dismantling (2001) to The Pirate Bay’s jurisdictional whack-a-mole, each wave of IP infringement forced industries to adapt or perish. Yet these cases reveal a deeper truth: when legal frameworks lag behind technological adoption, piracy redistributes value and fundamentally reshapes markets.

Parallel Battles: Pharmaceuticals and Smartphones

The tension between IP protection and public benefit extends beyond digital goods:

1. Pharmaceuticals: Compulsory Licensing vs. TRIPS Flexibilities

o India & China’s Reverse Engineering: Western pharmaceutical firms have long accused India and China of circumventing drug patents through reverse engineering—producing generic versions of patented medicines (e.g., HIV antiretrovirals, cancer drugs).

o Humanitarian vs. Legal Rights: India’s 2012 compulsory license for Bayer’s Nexavar (a kidney/liver cancer drug) allowed Natco Pharma to produce a generic version at 3% of the original cost, citing public health needs under TRIPS Article 31 (which permits compulsory licensing for national emergencies).

o   While Western pharma decries this as IP theft, the Doha Declaration (2001) explicitly reaffirmed countries’ rights to prioritize public health over patents. India’s generics industry supplies 60% of global vaccines and 20% of generic medicines, underscoring the ethical-legal divide.

2. Samsung Electronics vs. Apple: The $1 Billion Patent War (2011-2018)

o Design & Utility Patents: Apple accused Samsung of infringing on iPhone design patents (e.g., rounded corners, grid icons) and utility patents (e.g., “pinch-to-zoom”). A 2012 jury awarded Apple 1.05 billion (later reduced to 539 million).

o Global Ripple Effects: The case highlighted the fragility of design patents in tech, where incremental innovation blurs originality. By 2018, both sides settled out of court, signaling the futility of protracted litigation in fast-moving industries.

AI’s Copyright Inflection Point

Today, OpenAI and other AI labs employ data transformation techniques—blurring, cropping, and synthetic augmentation—to train models on copyrighted material while attempting to sidestep legal liability. Critics decry this as a technical loophole (e.g., using blurred Getty Images to avoid licensing); proponents argue it constitutes fair use under transformative doctrines like Authors Guild v. Google (2015), which permitted book scanning for search indexing. The recent viral controversy surrounding OpenAI's model generating imagery in the distinctive style of Studio Ghibli further complicates this debate—raising ethical and legal concerns about aesthetic mimicry, creator rights, and consent. While OpenAI claimed the outputs were user-driven and not explicitly trained to imitate Ghibli, the striking resemblance sparked backlash from artists and fans, who viewed it as appropriation masked by algorithmic distance. This underscores a growing tension in AI development: even when transformation techniques are legally defensible, they may still provoke cultural and moral objections. Key distinctions emerge:

1. Transformative Use or Technical Dodge? The Perfect 10 v. Google precedent established "non-expressive use" for functional purposes (e.g., thumbnails in search results). However, AI training outputs—which may compete with original works—stretch this doctrine. Courts must now decide: Is feeding copyrighted data into a model more akin to Google’s indexing (permissible) or Napster’s redistribution (infringement)?

2. Who Bears the Cost of Innovation? Microsoft’s piracy tolerance subsidized global PC adoption but devalued software. Similarly, AI’s reliance on unlicensed data risks undercutting creators while concentrating value in a few tech firms. Yet unlike 1990s China, there’s no obvious path to monetization—AI models don’t require user upgrades or subscriptions to function.

3. The Search for Equilibrium The music industry’s pivot from piracy (Napster) to licensed streaming (Spotify) required new revenue models. For AI, potential solutions include:

o Collective licensing pools (e.g., ASCAP for training data)

o Opt-in/opt-out regimes (e.g., OpenAI’s partnership with Axel Springer)

o Compulsory licensing (as with music covers, paying fixed fees to rights holders)

Lessons from the IP Wars

History suggests three imperatives for policymakers:

1. Adaptation Over Resistance:

o Pharma: Gilead’s tiered pricing for hepatitis C drugs (lower costs in developing nations) averted compulsory licensing clashes.

o Tech: Apple-Samsung’s settlement reflected the diminishing returns of litigation in iterative innovation.

2. Legal Clarity Is Critical: Ambiguity in fair use stifles investment. While Authors Guild v. Google provides a template, AI’s derivative outputs demand updated frameworks. The EU’s AI Act and the U.S. Copyright Office’s 2023 guidance are early steps, but case law remains undeveloped.

3. Balancing Innovation and Equity: The Oracle v. Google ruling (2021) prioritized interoperability over strict API copyrights, but AI’s scale amplifies the stakes. Training on the "cultural corpus" without compensation risks systemic extraction—yet overly restrictive rules could stifle progress.

The Stakes: Who Shapes the Future?

Piracy’s legacy was market dominance for some and obsolescence for others. AI’s IP battles won’t just redistribute value—they’ll determine whether the digital economy rewards creation or extraction. The central question isn’t merely legal but philosophical: If AI learns from the world, who owns what it produces?


That the contents of third-party articles/blogs published here on the website, and the interpretation of all information in the article/blogs such as data, maps, numbers, opinions etc. displayed in the article/blogs and views or the opinions expressed within the content are solely of the author's; and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of NASSCOM or its affiliates in any manner. NASSCOM does not take any liability w.r.t. content in any manner and will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any kind of liability arising out of any act, error or omission. The contents of third-party article/blogs published, are provided solely as convenience; and the presence of these articles/blogs should not, under any circumstances, be considered as an endorsement of the contents by NASSCOM in any manner; and if you chose to access these articles/blogs , you do so at your own risk.


images
Yashasvi Rathore
Manager - Legal Services

I do Law & Stuff. Charting my course as a first-gen lawyer. Three years of breaking molds and pushing boundaries. Hit me up for a fresh perspective and endless possibilities.

© Copyright nasscom. All Rights Reserved.