August 4, 2025 • 51 mins
The invisible legal architecture behind AI systems, either talking to each other or failing spectacularly, takes center stage in this deep dive into interoperability. Far more than technical specifications, the ability of AI models to connect and share data represents a battlefield where intellectual property rights, competition law, and global governance clash to determine who controls the digital ecosystem.
Starting with IBM's mainframe antitrust case, we trace how European regulators forced a tech giant to provide third parties with technical documentation needed for maintenance. This early precedent established that when your system becomes essential infrastructure, monopolizing access raises legal red flags. The SAS v. World Programming Limited ruling further clarified that functionality, programming languages, and data formats cannot be protected by copyright, giving developers freedom to create compatible systems without infringement concerns.
Patent battles reveal another dimension of interoperability politics. Cases like Huawei v. ZTE established detailed protocols for negotiating Standard Essential Patents, preventing companies from weaponizing their intellectual property to block competitors. The Microsoft v. Motorola judgment defined what "reasonable" licensing fees actually look like, protecting the principle that interoperability shouldn't bankrupt smaller players.
Google's decade-long fight with Oracle over Java API copyright culminated in a Supreme Court victory validating that reimplementing interfaces for compatibility constitutes fair use, a landmark decision protecting the ability to build systems that communicate with existing platforms without permission. Meanwhile, the Oracle v. Rimini ruling reinforced that third-party software support isn't derivative copyright infringement, even when designed exclusively for another company's ecosystem.
Beyond courtrooms, international frameworks increasingly shape AI interoperability standards. From UNESCO's ethics recommendation to ISO/IEC 42001 certification, from the G7 Hiroshima AI Process to regional initiatives like the African Union's Data Policy Framework, these governance mechanisms are establishing a global language for compatible, trustworthy AI development.
Whether you're building AI systems, crafting policy, or simply trying to understand why your tools won't work together, these legal precedents reveal that interoperability isn't just about good coding. It's about who controls the playground, the rulebook, and ultimately, the future of AI innovation.
Can't keep up with AI? We've got you. Everyday AI helps you keep up and get ahead.
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
Check out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Is your AI system playing well with others or
locking the playground gate?
Today we're exposing the hiddenlegal wiring behind AI
interoperability From patentshowdowns and copyright drama to
antitrust standoffs and aglobal tug of war over tech
standards.
We're serving 15 years ofregulatory tea, global court
rulings and policy power plays.
(00:20):
Leticia brings the IP brains, Ibring the SaaS.
Let's find out what it reallytakes to make AI systems speak
the same language, or whethersomeone's always trying to pull
the plug.
This is Intangiblia.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero property.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Today we're diving into a topicthat might sound technical but
touches every single AIinnovation out there
Interoperability.
If you've ever wished your AItools could talk to each other,
share data or just play nice,that's interoperability.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
But getting there isn't just about good coding.
It's a battlefield ofintellectual property,
competition law, global powerplays and very long acronyms.
From SAS to ZTE, from GDPR toGPAI.
We're decoding how countriesand companies have fought over
who controls the plug, thesocket and the instruction
manual.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
This episode was built in the AI playroom my
voice, ai clone, artemisa, fullyartificial and a bit too good
at this game.
What you're about to hear isfor informational purposes only.
No legal advice, just rules ofplay quorum style.
You know the drill.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Three, two, one, tag your suit.
Just kidding, let's go.
You know the drill.
Three, two, one, tag your suit.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Just kidding, let's go.
So, before we start droppingcase low Artemisa.
What is interoperability?
Speaker 1 (01:56):
It's the legal and technical magic that lets
different AI systems connect,share data and function together
without a meltdown.
Think of it like universalchargers for your algorithms,
except the law gets involvedwhen someone tries to lock the
socket.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
And when we talk about AI, interoperability isn't
just convenience, it's power.
Whoever controls the standardcontrols the ecosystem.
It's about market access,competition and, in some cases,
fundamental rights.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Exactly and surprise, it's also about IP, copyright
on APIs, patents on standards,brand promises, fair use.
Interoperability is where lawmeets code and egos meet
lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Our first stop Brussels, year 2011.
Seen, a very unsexy, verypowerful piece of tech, the
mainframe computer.
Ibm practically invented thisspace and for decades it ran the
show.
Think banking systems, airlines, insurance servers.
This wasn't about casual use,this was mission-critical
(03:10):
infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
And IBM had the nerve to play both host and
gatekeeper.
They sold the machines and theyinsisted on being the only ones
allowed to service them.
Not cute.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Third-party maintenance companies.
Think of them like the indierepair shops of the tech world.
Third-party maintenancecompanies Think of them like the
indie repair shops of the techworld that, hey, IBM's not
giving us the spare parts or thetechnical info we need to fix
these machines Without access.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Their business were toast, so they took it to the
European Commission Cue theantitrust alarms, because when
you control the whole ecosystem,you don't just have market
power, you have marketresponsibility Exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
The commission opened two formal investigations, one
following a complaint from T3Technologies and another from
Turbo Hercules, a company tryingto run IBM compatible systems
on non-IBM hardware, turbo,hercules that name sounds like a
protein shake, and yet theywere trying to shake up the
mainframe market, not theirbiceps.
(04:08):
They argued that IBM was usingits dominance over mainframe
hardware to lock customers intoits software and services and
refusing to license interfacesor share vital info with
competitors.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Translation IBM was being stingy with its toys after
inviting everyone to play.
Not a great look in apost-Microsoft antitrust world.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Under EU competition law, article 102 of the TFU to
be exact, has a problem,especially when your product
becomes the de facto standard.
If everyone builds on you, youdon't get to pull up the ladder.
So what did IBM do?
They settled no fine, but alegally binding commitment.
(04:52):
Ibm agreed to supplythird-party maintenance
providers with mainframe spareparts and technical
documentation on fair,reasonable and
non-discriminatory a-frand termsfor five years.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Aka, you built the mainframe, but now it's time to
share the manual.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
This was one of the earliest moments where
interpropagability became alegal obligation, not just a
technical preference.
It's also one of the firsttimes the EU used antitrust to
guarantee access to IP-dependentsystems in the tech sector.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Honestly, it set the tone because from here on out,
anyone dominating a system thatothers depend on better have a
France strategy or prepare forEU therapy sessions.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
And for AI.
This case taught us if yoursystem becomes the
infrastructure, your IP rightsmight bend to public interest,
Because sometimes the linebetween invention and monopoly
is just a locked port away.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
All right.
Case number two takes us deepinto the logic of software and
the limits of copyright.
The year is 2012 and the Courtof Justice of the European Union
is about to answer a burningquestion Can you copyright how a
program works, Not the codeitself, but its functions,
(06:15):
language and data format?
Enter SAS Institute big hotanalytics company.
They had a system where userscould write scripts in a
language called SAS language toanalyze massive data sets.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Now along comes word programming, led with a cheeky
UK-based startup that builds asoftware system that does
exactly what SAS's platform does, not by copying the code, but
by observing how it behaves andcreating a compatible product.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Basically they clone the vibes, the language, the
outputs, the functionality, butnot the source code.
Sas lost their mind.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
And they sued for copyright infringement, saying
that, even though the codewasn't copied, the look, logic
and feel of the software wereprotected.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
And here's where it gets hot.
The CJEU ruled thatfunctionality, programming,
languages and data file formatsare not protected by copyright.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
That means you can't stop someone from building
software that does the samething in the same way, using the
same command language, as longas they don't copy your actual
code.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
And this is huge for interoperability because it says
, if you want to make your AImodel or system compatible with
a dominant platform, you canstudy its behavior and build
around it without violatingcopyright.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
The court made it clear ideas and principles
behind software, includinginterfaces and languages, are
not protectable, Only theexpression of those ideas.
The code, can be copyrighted.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Which is why this case became a holy grail for
reverse engineers, open sourcerebels and AI developers who
need to plug into proprietaryecosystems without getting sued.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
It gave legal backing to clean room and
re-implementation the idea thatyou can build interoperable
software by analyzing howsomething works from the outside
without stealing the originalcode.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Let's say it together Interoperability is not
infringement, Unless you'recopying code.
Then it's a different episode.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And for AI.
This case supports the ideathat if you want to train your
model to work with someoneelse's formats, scripts or
inputs, you can legally, as longas you're not copying the code
base.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
It's a green light for compatibility innovation and
a red flag for vendors whothink copyright gives them
monopoly powers over ecosystems.
Sorry, the law says functionfiction protected.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Now we enter the world of standards and patents
that play both hero and villain.
It's 2014 and the EuropeanCommission is taking on not one
but two tech giants, samsung andMotorola their alleged crime
weaponizing patents that weresupposed to be shared fairly.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Oh yes, the juicy world of standard essential
patents, or EPS.
These are patents on tech thateveryone uses, like Wi-Fi, 3g or
compression formats If yourphone speaks the same wireless
language as mine.
Think ASEP and probably ASEP.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
But here's the catch If your patent becomes part of a
standard, you're expected tolicense it on FRAND terms fair,
reasonable andnon-discriminatory.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Which is legal code for you.
Don't get to become a trollafter joining the standards
party.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
In the Samsung case, the commission said hold up.
Samsung had joined the standardsetting process for mobile
communications and agreed toFran licensing.
But later they went after Apple, seeking injunctions to block
iPhone sales in Europe unlessApple agreed to their licensing
terms.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Sounds a lot like give us what we want or your
iPhones get banned.
Not exactly the spirit offriend.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Meanwhile, Motorola was doing something similar,
fighting for injunctions inGermany over SEPs against Apple,
even after Apple offered totake a license and submit to a
court-decided royalty.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
So what did the EU do ?
They pulled the Article 102lever abuse as dominance and
said if someone's willing tonegotiate, you can't use your
patent as a nuclear button.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
In Motorola's case, they were formally found to be
in breach of competition law.
In Samsung's case, thecommission accepted a legally
binding settlement.
Samsung promised not to seekinjunctions on SEPs in Europe
for five years against anycompany that agreed to a
pre-established licensingframework.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
You can fight over price, but not by threatening to
shut people down.
That's extortion, notnegotiation.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
These cases were huge because they clarify something
crucial Even if you have alegitimate patent, you can't use
it to block market access whenyou've promised to license it
fairly, especially if yourpatent sits inside a standard
that everyone has to use to evenenter the game and for AI.
This is where it gets reallyrelevant.
(11:18):
As AI matures, standards areforming for model architecture,
for data labeling, forinteroperability between agents,
and this case set theexpectation that patents
embedded in those standards canbecome traps.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
So if you build the rules, don't flip the board.
Brand means you license.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
You don't extort Friend means you license, you
don't extort, and this case gaveimplementers, startups,
challengers, small innovatorssome protection from being
bullied by giants who suddenlyremember they own the socket
everyone's using.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
So yes, patents matter, but once you sign the
friend handshake, you can't turnit into a chokehold.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Next up the CJEU again, this time in 2015.
You've heard of Huawei, right,the telecom titan with a lot of
patents.
Well, this case, huawei BEB ZTEgave us the first full legal
choreography for negotiatingstandard essential patents
(12:24):
Spoiler.
It's more tango than TikTok.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Two tech giants, one patent and a big question if
someone's using your SEP, yourstandard essential patent, how
exactly are you supposed tohandle it?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Because, remember, when your patent becomes part of
a standard, you're expected tolicense it under front terms.
But what if the other side isusing your tech without a
license?
Can you super an injunction orare you required to play nice
first?
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Huawei said they're infringing.
We want an injunction.
Zt said we're willing tonegotiate and we'll take a
license.
Cue the European Court ofJustice stepping in like the
referee at a patent wrestlingmatch.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
And the CJU ruled with all the elegance of a rules
committee at a ballroom dancecontest.
They said, yes, you can go tocourt, but not before.
Following the negotiationprotocol, let's break it down.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
The court laid out the Fran Dance steps.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Step one step holder must alert the user with all the
details what pattern, how it'sbeing used and why it's
essential.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Two Step two the implementer must clearly express
willingness to take a license.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Step three the step holder makes a specific brand
offer.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Or step four if the implementer doesn't like it,
they must respond promptly andreasonably, maybe with a
counteroffer.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Five, step five while all this is happening.
No injunctions unless there'sclear bad faith.
That's right.
You don't get to sue justbecause you're frustrated.
You need to negotiate like anadult.
No holding the industry hostagewhile shouting, but it's mine.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
What's beautiful about this decision is that it
balanced patent rights andmarket access.
It said you can protect yourinventions but not weaponize
them to block out competition.
When you've pledged France andfor AI.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
This sets a precedent , because if a model,
architecture, data set structureor API becomes a standard, the
owners of those building blocksmay face the same obligations.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
And this case is still the gold standard in the
EU for SEP disputes.
You don't just get to screaminfringement, you have to dance
the Fran dance formally,gracefully and with good faith.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So what did Huawei learn?
That a dominant position in themarket comes with
responsibility and paperwork.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
And what did ZTE learn?
That playing fair means showingup to negotiate, not stalling
while you profit off the tech.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
In other words, if you want to use a standard, be
ready to license and if you ownthe patent, be ready to offer
fair terms before you sue, andit's not a vibe, it's a process.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
And the court just handed you the choreography.
And it's not a vibe, it's aprocess.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
And the court just handed you the choreography.
Next up, another standard,essential balance, or, as I like
to call them, the ticket boothat the entrance to the
playground.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Because in tech, standards are how everyone
agrees on the shape of the slideand the width of the swing
chains.
And if your patent ends up in astandard, you're not the
gatekeeper anymore, you're thehost.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Enter Motorola, who held key patents for Wi-Fi and
video encoding standards, thekind of tech that makes devices
like Microsoft's Xbox or WindowsPCs just work.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Microsoft needed access to those patents to make
their products compatible.
So Motorola says sure, but onlyif you pay us 2.25% of the
product's price.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Wait, wait 2.25% per device.
That's like charging aplayground entry fee based on
the price of the child'ssneakers.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Exactly, microsoft called foul and sued, claiming
Motorola had breached itspromise to license those patents
on Fran terms Fair, reasonableand non-discriminatory.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And here's the kicker Fran is not just a feel good
acronym.
It's a binding promisecompanies make when their
patents become part of a globalstandard.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
In 2013, judge James Robart held a first of its kind
trial to determine what a fairroyalty actually looks like.
And spoiler it was a lot lessthan what Motorola wanted.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
We're talking fractions of a cent per unit for
some patents, because justbeing part of the playground
doesn't mean you get to chargeby the bounce.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Then came the 2015 Ninth Circuit decision.
It upheld the verdict andawarded Microsoft $14,500,000
zero cents in damages.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
The court made it crystal clear If you promise to
license your tech fairly, youcan backpedal and hold it
hostage once everyone's builtaround it.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
This case was a wake-up call for SEP holders.
You want your patent in thestandard Cool, but that comes
with global responsibility and areceipt book, not a ransom note
.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
And it protected the idea that interoperability
shouldn't bankrupt you.
Just because your swing setuses patented bolts doesn't mean
you get to tax the wholeplayground.
Okay, buckle up, because thisone's got a billion dollar
stakes, chips in everything anda roller coaster of legal
opinions.
It's FTC versus Qualcomm, andit ran from 2017 to 2020 like a
(17:49):
three season legal thriller.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Let me set the scene.
Qualcomm, king of mobilechipsets, not just building the
hardware, but licensing thetechnology that makes
smartphones actually talk toeach other.
And they weren't just licensingto manufacturers, they were
refusing to license tocompetitors.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Right.
They had a no license, no chipspolicy.
If you didn't pay up, youdidn't get the chips, End of
story.
And the US Federal TradeCommission said hold up, that
smells like abuse of dominance.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
So the FTC sued in 2017.
They argued that Qualcomm usedits standard essential patents
SEPs to squeeze unfair royaltiesout of phone makers and block
competitors from entering themarket.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
In 2019, the district court Judge Lucy Koh agreed.
She ruled that Qualcomm hadviolated antitrust law and
ordered sweeping remedies.
They had to renegotiatelicenses, stop threatening to
cut off chips and even licensetheir patents to rival chip
(18:58):
makers.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
But wait through the appeals court.
In 2020, the Ninth Circuittotally reversed the ruling.
They said Qualcomm's practicesmay be aggressive but not
anti-competitive.
Aka, this isn't illegal, it'sjust capitalism.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
And more than that, the court emphasized brand
disputes belong in patent orcontract law, not in antitrust.
They warned that turning everyroyalty negotiation into an
antitrust issue could chillinnovation.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Basically, don't bring a Sherman Act to a
licensing fight Now here's wherethis gets spicy for
interoperability and AI.
If courts won't step in whenstepholders deny access to
standards, even under a friendpledge, then standard setting
might not be enough to ensureaccess, which is scary, because
(19:48):
imagine an AI company thatinvents a new model interface,
gets it adopted as a standardand then refuses to license it
to rivals.
If Qualcomm's logic applies,that's just business, not
antitrust.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
So this case sent shockwaves.
In the EU, refusing to licensea CP could be abuse of dominance
, but in the US the courts justsaid not our lane.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
And the global message don't count on antitrust
law to guaranteeinteroperability, at least not
in American courts.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
Exactly.
If you want access to a techstandard, you'd better make sure
the licensing terms are crystalclear and enforceable through
contract law, not wishfulthinking.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Because if Qualcomm can walk away from Fran like
it's a breakup text, so canfuture AI platform owners.
So this case reminds us,standards are only as open as
their enforcement, and sometimesinnovation doesn't need more
rules, it needs better referees.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Now let's head over to Cupertino, Apple's playground
.
It's not just fancy, it'sfenced off, padlocked and
guarded by a sleek privacypolicy.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Enter Corellium, a cybersecurity firm with a very
different mission.
They didn't want to competewith iPhones.
They wanted to clone the iOSoperating system in a virtual
sandbox so researchers couldstress test it without breaking
real devices.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
So what did Corellium do?
They built a virtual iPhone, asimulated version of iOS.
You could pause, dissect,rewind and break without
actually breaking a phone.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
To Apple that sounded like digital trespassing.
They sued for copyrightinfringement and violating the
DMCA, claiming Corellium copiediOS and bypassed its technical
protection measures to buildthis virtual lab.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Corellium, on the other hand, argued fair use.
They weren't reselling iPhonesor making user-friendly clones.
They were giving researcherstools to find bugs, study
behavior and improve securityacross the ecosystem.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Think of it this way Apple built the playground and
said no one touches theblueprints.
Corellium said we built a scalemodel in a lab to test which
slide breaks under pressure.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
In 2020, the district court sided with Corellium on
fair use.
It ruled that Corellium's toolwas transformative.
It didn't just copy iOS.
It added new layers, pulsefunctions, memory inspection,
crash diagnostics, the courtalso pointed out.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Corellium removed most consumer facing features no
camera, no app store, no phonecalls.
This wasn't a consumer product,it was a research utility.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
And that made all the difference.
The use was scientific, notcommercial in nature, at least
not in the same market Appleoperated in, which meant no
copyright infringement.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Leader the twist Of course there is.
The court didn't throw outApple's DMCA anti-circumvention
claim.
It said fair use may let youcopy the playground for research
, but hopping the fence withoutpermission might still be
illegal.
So what did we learn here?
That reverse engineering forinteroperability and research
(23:13):
can be lawful, especially whenit adds value and avoids direct
competition.
But if you pick the lock onsomeone's tech, the DMCA might
still have something to say.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Apple and Corellium later settled out of court, but
this case still stands as alandmark, especially for anyone
developing compatibility tools,security software or virtual
testing platforms.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
In short, if you want to open up someone else's
playground for safety checks,bring your own tools and maybe a
good lawyer.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
All right, let's talk about the API showdown of the
century.
Is Google v Oracle?
And the US Supreme Court had toanswer a deceptively simple
question Is an API that's anapplication programming
interface copyrightable?
All right, let's talk about theAPI showdown of the century.
(24:05):
It's Google versus Oracle, andthe US Supreme Court had to
answer a deceptively simplequestion Is an API that's an
application programminginterface coprobatable?
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Let's break it down.
Apis are like menus they telldevelopers what's on offer, what
functions they can call, whatdata types go in and out.
In this case, google copiedabout 11,500 lines of Java API
declarations, so Androiddevelopers could keep writing in
Java without reinventing thewheel.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
An article.
Who had acquired Java throughits purchase of Sun Microsystems
said excuse me, that's ourintellectual property.
Google said calm down, it'sjust the structure, the function
headers.
We rewrote everything else.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
And then it escalated .
A full-on, multi-year legaldrama.
Lower courts, flip-flopped,billions were at stake.
The whole tech industry heldits breath.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
And in 2021, the Supreme Court finally ruled they
assumed that APIs werecopyrightable though that's
still debated but said Google'suse was fair use.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
That's right.
The court didn't settle thecopyrightability question
directly, but it said that, evenif API declarations are
protected, copying them for thesake of interoperability, to
enable developers to build newprograms in a familiar language,
is fair game In their words,google's use was transformative.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
They were building something new Android, not just
copying Java.
And preventing that reuse wouldrisk harm to the public,
especially to innovation.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
And the stakes were high.
If Oracle had won, it couldhave opened the door to
copyright claims over anyinterface, command structure or
software protocol.
Imagine the mess AI systemsblocked from reusing training,
apis, data structures or modelcalls.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Instead, the court sent a strong message.
Interoperability matters andre-implementing APIs is a form
of creative, transformative use,not piracy Also fun fact, the
court cited public interest increativity incentives.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
They knew this wasn't just about Google or Oracle.
It was about how softwareecosystems grow.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
So for the AI world this really is massive, because
if we want models to talk toeach other, tools to be
compatible and code to beremixable, then APIs need
breathing room and this casegave them that room.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
It didn't say APIs are free real estate, but it
said use them thoughtfully,transformatively, and the law
might just have your back.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
So this case a copyright win for
interoperability and a reminderthat law can evolve to keep
software innovation movingforward, even when it takes 11
years and 11,000 lines of codeto get there.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Picture this.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Oracle builds a huge software playground, custom
jungle gyms, secure tunnels anda user base locked into its
system.
Then Remini Street shows upwith tools, says hey, we'll
maintain your equipment, patchyour software, even add a new
ladder or two.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Oracle was not amused .
They sued Remini for copyrightinfringement, claiming Remini's
updates and patches were justunauthorized derivatives of
Oracle's code.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
Here's where it gets messy.
Remini wasn't copying code linefor line.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Rimini wasn't copying code line for line.
They were just buildingsoftware that worked with
Oracle's systems, like craftingnew robes for Oracle's monkey
bars without using Oracle'sactual robe.
And, let's be honest, oracledidn't want a third party doing
maintenance on his playground.
They argued Rimini's software,even if built from scratch, was
illegal because it only madesense in Oracle's sandbox, the
case bounces through the courtsfor over a decade.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Then, in 2024, the Ninth Circuit says stop the
tantrum.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
The ruling- interoperability does not equal
infringement.
The court clarified that justbecause a product works
exclusively with another doesn'tmake it a derivative work under
copyright law.
Think about that If Reminiwrites code to fit Oracle's
platform but doesn't copyprotected code, that's legal.
That's like designing a seesawthat bolts into Oracle's
(28:28):
playground, but using your ownmaterials.
Oracle also tried to sayRemini's updates made them look
bad, that it was a brandingissue, a quality issue, but the
court wasn't buying it.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
This case is huge for developers, support vendors and
anyone making add-ons, pluginsor third-party tools.
It says you don't have tolicense the whole jungle gym if
you're just building a betterslide.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
It also reinforces that software interoperability
is legal territory, not amonopoly loophole.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Oracle may own the playground, but the ruling says
all this can still show up,bring their own tools and make
the swing safer without gettingsued.
Not every legal turning pointcomes with a judge's gavel.
Some of the most powerfulforces shaping AI
interoperability come from softlaw, standards and international
coordination.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
Exactly If the courtroom is where legal drama
plays out, this is the writer'sroom, the place where global
agendas, ethical codes andinteroperability frameworks are
drafted.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
We call in this segment the infrastructure of
influence, because what happenshere doesn't always make
headlines, but it quietlydefines how AI systems behave,
connect and scale worldwide.
Welcome, Lisa, Take your seatfor yourself now.
2021, 193 countries agreed onsomething monumental a shared
(29:59):
vision for how AI should respecthuman rights, diversity and
dignity.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
That's right.
The UNESCO recommendation onthe ethics of artificial
intelligence was the firstglobal instrument of its kind.
Not just nice words.
It laid out clear principlesfor transparency, fairness,
accountability and yes,interoperability.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
It recognized that AI isn't just about code.
It's about how systems impactreal people in real places,
across cultures, borders andpower structures, and it called
for governments to invest inshared infrastructure, open
standards and ethical oversight.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
What makes it so powerful is that it's not
binding, but it's everywhere.
It shows up in national AIstrategies and procurement rules
and data policies, and in howcountries shape their AI
ambitions.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
UNESCO set the tone.
If we want AI that's globallytrusted, it needs to be globally
guided and somehow the worldactually agreed.
Now, while governments werewriting ethical principles into
global declarations, theengineers were busy drafting a
manifesto of their own.
Enter the IEEE's EthicallyAligned Design Initiative.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
This was no vague gesture.
It's a comprehensive framework,Hundreds of pages, created by
technologists, ethicists,philosophers and policy wonks
from around the world.
Their mission to ensure that AIand autonomous systems are
designed with human values atthe core.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
The ITO really didn't just ask what machines can do.
They asked what machines shoulddo, especially when those
machines are making decisionsthat affect lives, rights or
democratic processes.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
And here's where it gets juicy.
They didn't just stop at ethics.
They linked ethics to designarchitecture.
That means fairness,explainability, transparency and
, yes, interoperability.
All start in the system designphase, not as a patch after
launch.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
Ethically aligned design influence not only
developers, but governments,standardization bodies and
companies trying to bake valuesinto their AI from day one into
their AI from day one.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
It's like the instruction manual for
responsible innovation, onlywith actual chapters on bias,
agency, sustainability andsocial justice.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
And while it's technically voluntary, this
framework shapes ISO workinggroups and even corporatic
sports.
If your AI startup says it'sethically designed, there's a
good chance it's following thisplaybook.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
So, yes, it came from engineers, but it landed
everywhere.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Prove that ethics isn't a soft science when it's
built into the source code.
Next up, we're headed to theOECD, where ethics meets
taxonomy, because before youregulate something, you've got
to agree on what it actually is.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Right.
One country's chatbot might beanother's automated decision
maker, with human consequences.
Without a shared language,trying to govern AI globally is
like playing chess withmismatched rule books.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
So the OECD said let's fix that.
They created a classificationframework to help policymakers,
regulators and developersdescribe AI systems based on
what they do, how risky they areand how humans interact with
them.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
This is semantic interoperability at its finest.
It's not about code.
It's about making sure that,whether you're in Tokyo, Toronto
or Tunis, when someone sayshigh-risk AI, everyone knows
what that means.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
The framework breaks down systems by input type,
learning method, autonomy leveland social impact, and it's
designed to work acrossregulatory models, whether
you're enforcing the EU AI Act,designing a sandbox in Kenya or
building an ethics board in.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Brazil and the best part, it's not just for
governments.
Developers, civil society,auditors and even startups can
use it to explain their systemsin plain language and make their
work compatible withinternational standards.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
So while it won't send you to court, it might just
get you through customs.
This is the kind of quietpolicy tool that enables trust,
transparency and collaboration,especially when the stakes are
high and the systems are opaque.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
The OECD didn't tell the world what to regulate.
They gave the world a map tonavigate what's already here.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
So far we've seen frameworks and declarations that
demode, but now we're enteringstandard territory where things
get certified, auditable andofficially laminated.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
That's right.
In December 2023, theInternational Organization for
Standardization and theInternational Electrotechnical
Commission dropped something bigISO slash IEC 42001, the first
global management systemstandard for AI.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
This isn't about whether your AI is cool or scary
.
It's about whether your entireorganization knows what it's
doing.
The standard covers governancestructure, risk controls,
documentation, audit trails,stakeholder engagement and
continuous improvement, andhere's the plot twist.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
It's sector numeral Health tech, finance, government
tools doesn't matter If youbuild AI.
Iso 4201 gives you a commongovernance language.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
But what makes it a superstar in our theme today is
this ISO 40-2001 is built forinteroperability.
It's designed to help your AIsystem play nice across
platforms, borders and supplychains without sacrificing trust
or accountability.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
And let's not forget the real world Flex, you can get
certified.
This isn't just guidance, it'ssomething you can be audited on,
show off and wave around in afunding pitch or government bid.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
So now, if you say your AI is ethical, secure and
transparent, you can prove itwith a stamp ISO slash.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
IEC 42001 is basically the gold standard for
grown up AI governance.
It's how you tell the world wedon't just build smart tech, we
run it responsibly.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
All right.
So the ink was barely dry onISO slash IEC 42001.
And within a year thecertification wave began.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Because nothing says trust me, like an
internationally recognized badge, and companies were lining up
fast.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
By early 2024,.
We saw early adopters insectors like healthcare, banking
and autonomous vehicles getcertified.
Why?
Because those are theindustries where a bad AI day
could land you in court or thenews.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Governments took notice too.
Japan encouraged domestic AIcompanies to get certified,
india's Bureau of Standardslaunched training programs and
Canada already tyingcertification benchmarks into
federal procurement.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Even here in Switzerland, the early
certification pilots startedrolling out, blending the ISO
standard with national ethicalAI guidelines.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
It's not just compliance, it's positioning and
for global businesses, iso40-2001 certification became a
passport to credibility.
It tells partners, regulatorsand customers we're
interoperable, explainable andnot here to break things.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
Because, let's be honest, a lot of AI companies
talk a big game, but this, thisis the audit trail to back it up
and, from a global strategyperspective, this kind of
rollout helps reduce regulatorychaos.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
If everyone certifies against a shared standard,
cross-better AI suddenly getsway less messy.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
So if you're wondering where AI governance is
going, look for the logos.
The certification wave isn'tjust a trend, it's a signal of
market maturity.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
ISO 42001, because in 2025, interoperable and
accountable isn't a tagline,it's a competitive edge Up.
Next, we're shifting fromstandards bodies to diplomacy
rooms, and this one's atwo-parter the Global
Partnership on AI, icaca-gpaiand the G7 Hiroshima process.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
Let's start with GPAI , launched in 2020,.
This was the moment when 15countries, from the EU to India,
to the US, said we need to worktogether on AI that's safe,
fair and globally aligned.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
GPAI is in a treatment.
It's more like a globalco-working space where
researchers, civil society andpolicymakers tackle issues like
data governance, responsibleinnovation and yes
interoperability.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
Think of it as the R&D wing of global AI policy.
The reports and recommendationsthat emerge from GPAI often
feed directly into nationalstrategies and standard setting.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
And then it's Fast forward to 2023, when Japan held
the presidency of the G7 andlaunched the Hiroshima AI
process.
This was a huge moment.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
For the first time, G7 countries committed to a code
of conduct for advanced AIdevelopers, with core principles
like transparency, riskmanagement and international
alignment.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
And what was at the center of it all?
Interoperability.
Technical, legal, institutional, you name it.
The G7 agreed that theirsystems, safeguards and
definitions had to be mutuallycompatible or we'd all be stuck
in a global AI traffic jam.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
This wasn't just diplomacy.
It was a blueprint forharmonizing national strategies
so AI systems could scalewithout fragmenting global trust
.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
So, yes, GPAI and the Hiroshima process may not show
up in court, but they're shapingthe vocabulary, the priorities
and the roadmaps that countriesfollow next In short.
You don't need a binding treatywhen you've already aligned the
strategy and if your AIambitions go beyond borders,
(40:29):
this is the coordination thatlets your system travel legally
and ethically.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
Now let's zoom in on a region that's quietly building
one of the most ambitiousdigital ecosystems on the planet
Africa In 2022,.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
the African Union launched its data policy
framework a bold plan not justfor AI, but for digital
transformation across the entirecontinent for AI, but for
digital transformation acrossthe entire continent.
Speaker 3 (41:06):
The vision a harmonized, cross-bender digital
space where data can flow,systems can talk and innovation
doesn't get stuck at everynational firewall.
Speaker 1 (41:14):
And here's where it gets exciting.
For us, interoperability isn'ta footnote, it's a foundational
pillar.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
The framework calls for shared technical standards,
open protocols and institutionalcoordination between member
states.
That includes AI tools used inagriculture, healthcare, finance
and public services.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
It also pushes for regional cloud infrastructure,
local data processing andmultilingual AI interfaces, so
that systems can serve peoplewhere they are, in the languages
they speak and this isn't justabout tech.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
It's about sovereignty, development and
equity making sure that Africannations aren't just adopting
global AI systems, but shapingand exporting their own and in a
world where regulatory chaosoften holds AI back.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
the EU said what if we made interoperability the
default, not the afterthought?
Speaker 3 (42:07):
So, while others debate compliance, the African
Union is designing an ecosystemthat scales responsibly and
cooperatively.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
If you're looking for regional leadership in AI
governance, this isn't just anexample, it's a blueprint with
backbone.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
So far, we've taught frameworks, declarations and
voluntary standards, but nowwe're entering binding territory
.
Speaker 1 (42:33):
That's right.
The Council of Europe, home ofthe European Court of Human
Rights and one of the OGs ofinternational law, is drafting a
treaty that could become thefirst legally binding AI
convention in the world.
Speaker 3 (42:45):
Called the Convention on Artificial Intelligence,
Human Rights, Democracy and theRule of Law, or CII for short,
and yes, that title is doing alot of work.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
CII goes beyond ethics.
It's about rights, remedies andrules that stick If adopted.
Countries that sign on wouldneed to align their AI systems
with core democratic values andlegal guarantees, and here is
where it hits our theme.
Speaker 3 (43:13):
CAI includes provisions on interpretability
at the institutional level,ensuring AI oversight, audits
and legal processes can actuallycoordinate across borders.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Because, let's face it, an algorithm doesn't care
which legal system it's deployedin, but humans definitely do.
Speaker 3 (43:30):
The treaty is still under negotiation, but it's
already influencing nationallaws and global debates,
especially in Europe, latinAmerica and parts of Africa,
regions that often align withCouncil of Europe principles.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
And don't forget, the CAI would be open to
non-European countries too.
So we're talking about apotential global governance
mechanism, not just a regionalone.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
So while others are still drafting ethical charters,
the Council of Europe issetting up legal consequences.
Speaker 1 (44:07):
And, let's be honest, sometimes the only thing
stronger than a standard is asignature on a treaty with real
accountability.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Let's take a moment to bow to the Queen.
The General Data ProtectionRegulation, better known as GDPR
, didn't just change Europe.
It changed how the entire worldthinks about data.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Came into force in 2018, still causing compliance
panic in 2025.
Gdpr was one of the first lawsto say if your system processes
people's data, it better betransparent, fair and wait for
it interoperable.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
That's right GDPR baked in rights like data
portability and access, whichdon't work unless systems can
actually talk to each other.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
If you've ever downloaded your data from a
platform or transferred it to anew service, that's GDPR's
interoperability clause workingbehind the scenes.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
And even though it's European law, gdpr became the de
facto global benchmark, becauseif you want to do business in
the EU and, let's face it,everyone does you play by these
rules.
Speaker 1 (45:10):
AI systems, especially those trained or
operating on personal data, arenow being retrofitted to fit
GDPR's expectationsexplainability, user control,
legal basis, check, check andcheck.
Speaker 3 (45:21):
And while GDPR isn't an AI law per se, it paved the
way Because, once we acceptedthat data rights were real, we
had to figure out how to buildsystems that respect them by
design.
Speaker 1 (45:37):
So if AI wants to be global, it has to be GDPR ready.
And if it wants to be GDPRready, it better know how to
interoperate across borders,platforms and preferences.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
Still the gold standard, still bossing the tech
industry around, and still thereason every privacy notice
you've ever read sounds slightlypanic.
If GDPR was the EU's privacymind, drop.
The Digital Decade Declarationwas the strategy remix Less law,
more mission.
And that mission Make the EU adigitally sovereign,
(46:12):
interoperable and resilientbeast by 2030.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
This isn't a regulation, it's a commitment
statement, but it comes withmeasurable targets for digital
infrastructure, digital skills,digital business and digital
public services.
Speaker 3 (46:28):
And underneath it all , you guessed it
interoperability, because youcan't build a pan-European
digital ecosystem if everycountry is still coding in
isolation.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
The declaration pushes for cross-border services
, common data spaces andstandards that make public
systems plug and play across all27 member states.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
So, whether it's ID, health systems or justice
platforms, europe wants them tobe secure, portable and legally
compatible.
Speaker 1 (46:59):
This isn't just convenience, it's policy,
infrastructure and yes, AI is inthe mix too, as the EU rolls
out the AI Act.
The digital decade goals arewhat give those rules a place to
live Shared infrastructure,aligned standards and digital
trust across borders.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
So, while the declaration doesn't come with
fines or enforcement, it setsthe strategic tempo.
If GDPR was the what, this isthe how, fast and with who.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
And as the world watches, europe build its
interoperable digital machine,don't be surprised if these
benchmarks start popping up inother countries' national plans
too.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
It's the final reminder in our tour
interoperability isn't justtechnical, it's strategic and
deeply intentional.
All right, five things to carrywith you, whether you're coding
a chatbot, writing procurementpolicy or just trying not to get
sued by 2030.
Speaker 1 (47:57):
Quality.
One interoperability is both atech feature and a legal
battlefield.
If your AI can't connect, itmight not just be bad design, it
could be a standards war, apatent trap or the start of an
antitrust complaint.
Speaker 3 (48:12):
Two brand is the name of the game in standard setting
.
Fair, reasonable andnon-discriminatory isn't just
polite, it's enforceable.
And non-discriminatory isn'tjust polite, it's enforceable.
If you've pledged to licenseyour tag fairly, the courts will
hold you to it.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
No, take backs.
Three copyright doesn't coverAPIs or languages.
Yet Reverse engineering forcompatibility is still legal in
many places.
But tread lightly.
Not all jurisdictions speak thesame IP dialect.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
Four policies moving faster than ever, From ISO to
UNESCO, from the G7 to the AU.
Standards and ethicalframeworks are popping up like
cookies on a news site.
Read before you click accessFive.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
The future will be interoperable or it won't work
at all.
Despite the noise, we'rewitnessing a slow but steady
global convergence.
If your AI wants to scale,partner or govern anything,
you'll need a passport ofcompliance, auditable systems
and a really good lawyer.
I'll advise you to court lawyer.
(49:21):
That's a wrap on Plug, play orPay.
If today's episode gave youlegal whiplash, good, that's
what happens when the wholeworld races to set the rules.
And remember it's not aboutbuilding the smartest AI.
It's about building one thatcan collaborate, comply and
scale without taking down theecosystem or your company.
Thanks for listening.
Until next time, stay connected, stay compliant and stay clever
(49:43):
.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(50:04):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Is your AI system playing well with others or
locking the playground gate?
Today we're exposing the hiddenlegal wiring behind AI
interoperability From patentshowdowns and copyright drama to
antitrust standoffs and aglobal tug of war over tech
standards.
We're serving 15 years ofregulatory tea, global court
rulings and policy power plays.
(00:20):
Leticia brings the IP brains, Ibring the SaaS.
Let's find out what it reallytakes to make AI systems speak
the same language, or whethersomeone's always trying to pull
the plug.
This is Intangiblia.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero property.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Today we're diving into a topicthat might sound technical but
touches every single AIinnovation out there
Interoperability.
If you've ever wished your AItools could talk to each other,
share data or just play nice,that's interoperability.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
But getting there isn't just about good coding.
It's a battlefield ofintellectual property,
competition law, global powerplays and very long acronyms.
From SAS to ZTE, from GDPR toGPAI.
We're decoding how countriesand companies have fought over
who controls the plug, thesocket and the instruction
manual.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
This episode was built in the AI playroom my
voice, ai clone, artemisa, fullyartificial and a bit too good
at this game.
What you're about to hear isfor informational purposes only.
No legal advice, just rules ofplay quorum style.
You know the drill.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Three, two, one, tag your suit.
Just kidding, let's go.
You know the drill.
Three, two, one, tag your suit.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Just kidding, let's go.
So, before we start droppingcase low Artemisa.
What is interoperability?
Speaker 1 (01:56):
It's the legal and technical magic that lets
different AI systems connect,share data and function together
without a meltdown.
Think of it like universalchargers for your algorithms,
except the law gets involvedwhen someone tries to lock the
socket.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
And when we talk about AI, interoperability isn't
just convenience, it's power.
Whoever controls the standardcontrols the ecosystem.
It's about market access,competition and, in some cases,
fundamental rights.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Exactly and surprise, it's also about IP, copyright
on APIs, patents on standards,brand promises, fair use.
Interoperability is where lawmeets code and egos meet
lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Our first stop Brussels, year 2011.
Seen, a very unsexy, verypowerful piece of tech, the
mainframe computer.
Ibm practically invented thisspace and for decades it ran the
show.
Think banking systems, airlines, insurance servers.
This wasn't about casual use,this was mission-critical
(03:10):
infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
And IBM had the nerve to play both host and
gatekeeper.
They sold the machines and theyinsisted on being the only ones
allowed to service them.
Not cute.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Third-party maintenance companies.
Think of them like the indierepair shops of the tech world.
Third-party maintenancecompanies Think of them like the
indie repair shops of the techworld that, hey, IBM's not
giving us the spare parts or thetechnical info we need to fix
these machines Without access.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Their business were toast, so they took it to the
European Commission Cue theantitrust alarms, because when
you control the whole ecosystem,you don't just have market
power, you have marketresponsibility Exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
The commission opened two formal investigations, one
following a complaint from T3Technologies and another from
Turbo Hercules, a company tryingto run IBM compatible systems
on non-IBM hardware, turbo,hercules that name sounds like a
protein shake, and yet theywere trying to shake up the
mainframe market, not theirbiceps.
(04:08):
They argued that IBM was usingits dominance over mainframe
hardware to lock customers intoits software and services and
refusing to license interfacesor share vital info with
competitors.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Translation IBM was being stingy with its toys after
inviting everyone to play.
Not a great look in apost-Microsoft antitrust world.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Under EU competition law, article 102 of the TFU to
be exact, has a problem,especially when your product
becomes the de facto standard.
If everyone builds on you, youdon't get to pull up the ladder.
So what did IBM do?
They settled no fine, but alegally binding commitment.
(04:52):
Ibm agreed to supplythird-party maintenance
providers with mainframe spareparts and technical
documentation on fair,reasonable and
non-discriminatory a-frand termsfor five years.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Aka, you built the mainframe, but now it's time to
share the manual.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
This was one of the earliest moments where
interpropagability became alegal obligation, not just a
technical preference.
It's also one of the firsttimes the EU used antitrust to
guarantee access to IP-dependentsystems in the tech sector.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Honestly, it set the tone because from here on out,
anyone dominating a system thatothers depend on better have a
France strategy or prepare forEU therapy sessions.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
And for AI.
This case taught us if yoursystem becomes the
infrastructure, your IP rightsmight bend to public interest,
Because sometimes the linebetween invention and monopoly
is just a locked port away.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
All right.
Case number two takes us deepinto the logic of software and
the limits of copyright.
The year is 2012 and the Courtof Justice of the European Union
is about to answer a burningquestion Can you copyright how a
program works, Not the codeitself, but its functions,
(06:15):
language and data format?
Enter SAS Institute big hotanalytics company.
They had a system where userscould write scripts in a
language called SAS language toanalyze massive data sets.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
Now along comes word programming, led with a cheeky
UK-based startup that builds asoftware system that does
exactly what SAS's platform does, not by copying the code, but
by observing how it behaves andcreating a compatible product.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Basically they clone the vibes, the language, the
outputs, the functionality, butnot the source code.
Sas lost their mind.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
And they sued for copyright infringement, saying
that, even though the codewasn't copied, the look, logic
and feel of the software wereprotected.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
And here's where it gets hot.
The CJEU ruled thatfunctionality, programming,
languages and data file formatsare not protected by copyright.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
That means you can't stop someone from building
software that does the samething in the same way, using the
same command language, as longas they don't copy your actual
code.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
And this is huge for interoperability because it says
, if you want to make your AImodel or system compatible with
a dominant platform, you canstudy its behavior and build
around it without violatingcopyright.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
The court made it clear ideas and principles
behind software, includinginterfaces and languages, are
not protectable, Only theexpression of those ideas.
The code, can be copyrighted.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Which is why this case became a holy grail for
reverse engineers, open sourcerebels and AI developers who
need to plug into proprietaryecosystems without getting sued.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
It gave legal backing to clean room and
re-implementation the idea thatyou can build interoperable
software by analyzing howsomething works from the outside
without stealing the originalcode.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
Let's say it together Interoperability is not
infringement, Unless you'recopying code.
Then it's a different episode.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And for AI.
This case supports the ideathat if you want to train your
model to work with someoneelse's formats, scripts or
inputs, you can legally, as longas you're not copying the code
base.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
It's a green light for compatibility innovation and
a red flag for vendors whothink copyright gives them
monopoly powers over ecosystems.
Sorry, the law says functionfiction protected.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Now we enter the world of standards and patents
that play both hero and villain.
It's 2014 and the EuropeanCommission is taking on not one
but two tech giants, samsung andMotorola their alleged crime
weaponizing patents that weresupposed to be shared fairly.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Oh yes, the juicy world of standard essential
patents, or EPS.
These are patents on tech thateveryone uses, like Wi-Fi, 3g or
compression formats If yourphone speaks the same wireless
language as mine.
Think ASEP and probably ASEP.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
But here's the catch If your patent becomes part of a
standard, you're expected tolicense it on FRAND terms fair,
reasonable andnon-discriminatory.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Which is legal code for you.
Don't get to become a trollafter joining the standards
party.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
In the Samsung case, the commission said hold up.
Samsung had joined the standardsetting process for mobile
communications and agreed toFran licensing.
But later they went after Apple, seeking injunctions to block
iPhone sales in Europe unlessApple agreed to their licensing
terms.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
Sounds a lot like give us what we want or your
iPhones get banned.
Not exactly the spirit offriend.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Meanwhile, Motorola was doing something similar,
fighting for injunctions inGermany over SEPs against Apple,
even after Apple offered totake a license and submit to a
court-decided royalty.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
So what did the EU do ?
They pulled the Article 102lever abuse as dominance and
said if someone's willing tonegotiate, you can't use your
patent as a nuclear button.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
In Motorola's case, they were formally found to be
in breach of competition law.
In Samsung's case, thecommission accepted a legally
binding settlement.
Samsung promised not to seekinjunctions on SEPs in Europe
for five years against anycompany that agreed to a
pre-established licensingframework.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
You can fight over price, but not by threatening to
shut people down.
That's extortion, notnegotiation.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
These cases were huge because they clarify something
crucial Even if you have alegitimate patent, you can't use
it to block market access whenyou've promised to license it
fairly, especially if yourpatent sits inside a standard
that everyone has to use to evenenter the game and for AI.
This is where it gets reallyrelevant.
(11:18):
As AI matures, standards areforming for model architecture,
for data labeling, forinteroperability between agents,
and this case set theexpectation that patents
embedded in those standards canbecome traps.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
So if you build the rules, don't flip the board.
Brand means you license.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
You don't extort Friend means you license, you
don't extort, and this case gaveimplementers, startups,
challengers, small innovatorssome protection from being
bullied by giants who suddenlyremember they own the socket
everyone's using.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
So yes, patents matter, but once you sign the
friend handshake, you can't turnit into a chokehold.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Next up the CJEU again, this time in 2015.
You've heard of Huawei, right,the telecom titan with a lot of
patents.
Well, this case, huawei BEB ZTEgave us the first full legal
choreography for negotiatingstandard essential patents
(12:24):
Spoiler.
It's more tango than TikTok.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Two tech giants, one patent and a big question if
someone's using your SEP, yourstandard essential patent, how
exactly are you supposed tohandle it?
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Because, remember, when your patent becomes part of
a standard, you're expected tolicense it under front terms.
But what if the other side isusing your tech without a
license?
Can you super an injunction orare you required to play nice
first?
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Huawei said they're infringing.
We want an injunction.
Zt said we're willing tonegotiate and we'll take a
license.
Cue the European Court ofJustice stepping in like the
referee at a patent wrestlingmatch.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
And the CJU ruled with all the elegance of a rules
committee at a ballroom dancecontest.
They said, yes, you can go tocourt, but not before.
Following the negotiationprotocol, let's break it down.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
The court laid out the Fran Dance steps.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Step one step holder must alert the user with all the
details what pattern, how it'sbeing used and why it's
essential.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Two Step two the implementer must clearly express
willingness to take a license.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Step three the step holder makes a specific brand
offer.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Or step four if the implementer doesn't like it,
they must respond promptly andreasonably, maybe with a
counteroffer.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Five, step five while all this is happening.
No injunctions unless there'sclear bad faith.
That's right.
You don't get to sue justbecause you're frustrated.
You need to negotiate like anadult.
No holding the industry hostagewhile shouting, but it's mine.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
What's beautiful about this decision is that it
balanced patent rights andmarket access.
It said you can protect yourinventions but not weaponize
them to block out competition.
When you've pledged France andfor AI.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
This sets a precedent , because if a model,
architecture, data set structureor API becomes a standard, the
owners of those building blocksmay face the same obligations.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
And this case is still the gold standard in the
EU for SEP disputes.
You don't just get to screaminfringement, you have to dance
the Fran dance formally,gracefully and with good faith.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So what did Huawei learn?
That a dominant position in themarket comes with
responsibility and paperwork.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
And what did ZTE learn?
That playing fair means showingup to negotiate, not stalling
while you profit off the tech.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
In other words, if you want to use a standard, be
ready to license and if you ownthe patent, be ready to offer
fair terms before you sue, andit's not a vibe, it's a process.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
And the court just handed you the choreography.
And it's not a vibe, it's aprocess.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
And the court just handed you the choreography.
Next up, another standard,essential balance, or, as I like
to call them, the ticket boothat the entrance to the
playground.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Because in tech, standards are how everyone
agrees on the shape of the slideand the width of the swing
chains.
And if your patent ends up in astandard, you're not the
gatekeeper anymore, you're thehost.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Enter Motorola, who held key patents for Wi-Fi and
video encoding standards, thekind of tech that makes devices
like Microsoft's Xbox or WindowsPCs just work.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Microsoft needed access to those patents to make
their products compatible.
So Motorola says sure, but onlyif you pay us 2.25% of the
product's price.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Wait, wait 2.25% per device.
That's like charging aplayground entry fee based on
the price of the child'ssneakers.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Exactly, microsoft called foul and sued, claiming
Motorola had breached itspromise to license those patents
on Fran terms Fair, reasonableand non-discriminatory.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And here's the kicker Fran is not just a feel good
acronym.
It's a binding promisecompanies make when their
patents become part of a globalstandard.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
In 2013, judge James Robart held a first of its kind
trial to determine what a fairroyalty actually looks like.
And spoiler it was a lot lessthan what Motorola wanted.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
We're talking fractions of a cent per unit for
some patents, because justbeing part of the playground
doesn't mean you get to chargeby the bounce.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Then came the 2015 Ninth Circuit decision.
It upheld the verdict andawarded Microsoft $14,500,000
zero cents in damages.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
The court made it crystal clear If you promise to
license your tech fairly, youcan backpedal and hold it
hostage once everyone's builtaround it.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
This case was a wake-up call for SEP holders.
You want your patent in thestandard Cool, but that comes
with global responsibility and areceipt book, not a ransom note
.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
And it protected the idea that interoperability
shouldn't bankrupt you.
Just because your swing setuses patented bolts doesn't mean
you get to tax the wholeplayground.
Okay, buckle up, because thisone's got a billion dollar
stakes, chips in everything anda roller coaster of legal
opinions.
It's FTC versus Qualcomm, andit ran from 2017 to 2020 like a
(17:49):
three season legal thriller.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Let me set the scene.
Qualcomm, king of mobilechipsets, not just building the
hardware, but licensing thetechnology that makes
smartphones actually talk toeach other.
And they weren't just licensingto manufacturers, they were
refusing to license tocompetitors.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Right.
They had a no license, no chipspolicy.
If you didn't pay up, youdidn't get the chips, End of
story.
And the US Federal TradeCommission said hold up, that
smells like abuse of dominance.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
So the FTC sued in 2017.
They argued that Qualcomm usedits standard essential patents
SEPs to squeeze unfair royaltiesout of phone makers and block
competitors from entering themarket.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
In 2019, the district court Judge Lucy Koh agreed.
She ruled that Qualcomm hadviolated antitrust law and
ordered sweeping remedies.
They had to renegotiatelicenses, stop threatening to
cut off chips and even licensetheir patents to rival chip
(18:58):
makers.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
But wait through the appeals court.
In 2020, the Ninth Circuittotally reversed the ruling.
They said Qualcomm's practicesmay be aggressive but not
anti-competitive.
Aka, this isn't illegal, it'sjust capitalism.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
And more than that, the court emphasized brand
disputes belong in patent orcontract law, not in antitrust.
They warned that turning everyroyalty negotiation into an
antitrust issue could chillinnovation.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Basically, don't bring a Sherman Act to a
licensing fight Now here's wherethis gets spicy for
interoperability and AI.
If courts won't step in whenstepholders deny access to
standards, even under a friendpledge, then standard setting
might not be enough to ensureaccess, which is scary, because
(19:48):
imagine an AI company thatinvents a new model interface,
gets it adopted as a standardand then refuses to license it
to rivals.
If Qualcomm's logic applies,that's just business, not
antitrust.
Speaker 3 (19:59):
So this case sent shockwaves.
In the EU, refusing to licensea CP could be abuse of dominance
, but in the US the courts justsaid not our lane.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
And the global message don't count on antitrust
law to guaranteeinteroperability, at least not
in American courts.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
Exactly.
If you want access to a techstandard, you'd better make sure
the licensing terms are crystalclear and enforceable through
contract law, not wishfulthinking.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Because if Qualcomm can walk away from Fran like
it's a breakup text, so canfuture AI platform owners.
So this case reminds us,standards are only as open as
their enforcement, and sometimesinnovation doesn't need more
rules, it needs better referees.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Now let's head over to Cupertino, Apple's playground
.
It's not just fancy, it'sfenced off, padlocked and
guarded by a sleek privacypolicy.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Enter Corellium, a cybersecurity firm with a very
different mission.
They didn't want to competewith iPhones.
They wanted to clone the iOSoperating system in a virtual
sandbox so researchers couldstress test it without breaking
real devices.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
So what did Corellium do?
They built a virtual iPhone, asimulated version of iOS.
You could pause, dissect,rewind and break without
actually breaking a phone.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
To Apple that sounded like digital trespassing.
They sued for copyrightinfringement and violating the
DMCA, claiming Corellium copiediOS and bypassed its technical
protection measures to buildthis virtual lab.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Corellium, on the other hand, argued fair use.
They weren't reselling iPhonesor making user-friendly clones.
They were giving researcherstools to find bugs, study
behavior and improve securityacross the ecosystem.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Think of it this way Apple built the playground and
said no one touches theblueprints.
Corellium said we built a scalemodel in a lab to test which
slide breaks under pressure.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
In 2020, the district court sided with Corellium on
fair use.
It ruled that Corellium's toolwas transformative.
It didn't just copy iOS.
It added new layers, pulsefunctions, memory inspection,
crash diagnostics, the courtalso pointed out.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Corellium removed most consumer facing features no
camera, no app store, no phonecalls.
This wasn't a consumer product,it was a research utility.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
And that made all the difference.
The use was scientific, notcommercial in nature, at least
not in the same market Appleoperated in, which meant no
copyright infringement.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Leader the twist Of course there is.
The court didn't throw outApple's DMCA anti-circumvention
claim.
It said fair use may let youcopy the playground for research
, but hopping the fence withoutpermission might still be
illegal.
So what did we learn here?
That reverse engineering forinteroperability and research
(23:13):
can be lawful, especially whenit adds value and avoids direct
competition.
But if you pick the lock onsomeone's tech, the DMCA might
still have something to say.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Apple and Corellium later settled out of court, but
this case still stands as alandmark, especially for anyone
developing compatibility tools,security software or virtual
testing platforms.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
In short, if you want to open up someone else's
playground for safety checks,bring your own tools and maybe a
good lawyer.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
All right, let's talk about the API showdown of the
century.
Is Google v Oracle?
And the US Supreme Court had toanswer a deceptively simple
question Is an API that's anapplication programming
interface copyrightable?
All right, let's talk about theAPI showdown of the century.
(24:05):
It's Google versus Oracle, andthe US Supreme Court had to
answer a deceptively simplequestion Is an API that's an
application programminginterface coprobatable?
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Let's break it down.
Apis are like menus they telldevelopers what's on offer, what
functions they can call, whatdata types go in and out.
In this case, google copiedabout 11,500 lines of Java API
declarations, so Androiddevelopers could keep writing in
Java without reinventing thewheel.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
An article.
Who had acquired Java throughits purchase of Sun Microsystems
said excuse me, that's ourintellectual property.
Google said calm down, it'sjust the structure, the function
headers.
We rewrote everything else.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
And then it escalated .
A full-on, multi-year legaldrama.
Lower courts, flip-flopped,billions were at stake.
The whole tech industry heldits breath.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
And in 2021, the Supreme Court finally ruled they
assumed that APIs werecopyrightable though that's
still debated but said Google'suse was fair use.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
That's right.
The court didn't settle thecopyrightability question
directly, but it said that, evenif API declarations are
protected, copying them for thesake of interoperability, to
enable developers to build newprograms in a familiar language,
is fair game In their words,google's use was transformative.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
They were building something new Android, not just
copying Java.
And preventing that reuse wouldrisk harm to the public,
especially to innovation.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
And the stakes were high.
If Oracle had won, it couldhave opened the door to
copyright claims over anyinterface, command structure or
software protocol.
Imagine the mess AI systemsblocked from reusing training,
apis, data structures or modelcalls.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Instead, the court sent a strong message.
Interoperability matters andre-implementing APIs is a form
of creative, transformative use,not piracy Also fun fact, the
court cited public interest increativity incentives.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
They knew this wasn't just about Google or Oracle.
It was about how softwareecosystems grow.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
So for the AI world this really is massive, because
if we want models to talk toeach other, tools to be
compatible and code to beremixable, then APIs need
breathing room and this casegave them that room.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
It didn't say APIs are free real estate, but it
said use them thoughtfully,transformatively, and the law
might just have your back.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
So this case a copyright win for
interoperability and a reminderthat law can evolve to keep
software innovation movingforward, even when it takes 11
years and 11,000 lines of codeto get there.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
Picture this.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Oracle builds a huge software playground, custom
jungle gyms, secure tunnels anda user base locked into its
system.
Then Remini Street shows upwith tools, says hey, we'll
maintain your equipment, patchyour software, even add a new
ladder or two.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Oracle was not amused .
They sued Remini for copyrightinfringement, claiming Remini's
updates and patches were justunauthorized derivatives of
Oracle's code.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
Here's where it gets messy.
Remini wasn't copying code linefor line.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Rimini wasn't copying code line for line.
They were just buildingsoftware that worked with
Oracle's systems, like craftingnew robes for Oracle's monkey
bars without using Oracle'sactual robe.
And, let's be honest, oracledidn't want a third party doing
maintenance on his playground.
They argued Rimini's software,even if built from scratch, was
illegal because it only madesense in Oracle's sandbox, the
case bounces through the courtsfor over a decade.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Then, in 2024, the Ninth Circuit says stop the
tantrum.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
The ruling- interoperability does not equal
infringement.
The court clarified that justbecause a product works
exclusively with another doesn'tmake it a derivative work under
copyright law.
Think about that If Reminiwrites code to fit Oracle's
platform but doesn't copyprotected code, that's legal.
That's like designing a seesawthat bolts into Oracle's
(28:28):
playground, but using your ownmaterials.
Oracle also tried to sayRemini's updates made them look
bad, that it was a brandingissue, a quality issue, but the
court wasn't buying it.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
This case is huge for developers, support vendors and
anyone making add-ons, pluginsor third-party tools.
It says you don't have tolicense the whole jungle gym if
you're just building a betterslide.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
It also reinforces that software interoperability
is legal territory, not amonopoly loophole.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Oracle may own the playground, but the ruling says
all this can still show up,bring their own tools and make
the swing safer without gettingsued.
Not every legal turning pointcomes with a judge's gavel.
Some of the most powerfulforces shaping AI
interoperability come from softlaw, standards and international
coordination.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
Exactly If the courtroom is where legal drama
plays out, this is the writer'sroom, the place where global
agendas, ethical codes andinteroperability frameworks are
drafted.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
We call in this segment the infrastructure of
influence, because what happenshere doesn't always make
headlines, but it quietlydefines how AI systems behave,
connect and scale worldwide.
Welcome, Lisa, Take your seatfor yourself now.
2021, 193 countries agreed onsomething monumental a shared
(29:59):
vision for how AI should respecthuman rights, diversity and
dignity.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
That's right.
The UNESCO recommendation onthe ethics of artificial
intelligence was the firstglobal instrument of its kind.
Not just nice words.
It laid out clear principlesfor transparency, fairness,
accountability and yes,interoperability.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
It recognized that AI isn't just about code.
It's about how systems impactreal people in real places,
across cultures, borders andpower structures, and it called
for governments to invest inshared infrastructure, open
standards and ethical oversight.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
What makes it so powerful is that it's not
binding, but it's everywhere.
It shows up in national AIstrategies and procurement rules
and data policies, and in howcountries shape their AI
ambitions.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
UNESCO set the tone.
If we want AI that's globallytrusted, it needs to be globally
guided and somehow the worldactually agreed.
Now, while governments werewriting ethical principles into
global declarations, theengineers were busy drafting a
manifesto of their own.
Enter the IEEE's EthicallyAligned Design Initiative.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
This was no vague gesture.
It's a comprehensive framework,Hundreds of pages, created by
technologists, ethicists,philosophers and policy wonks
from around the world.
Their mission to ensure that AIand autonomous systems are
designed with human values atthe core.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
The ITO really didn't just ask what machines can do.
They asked what machines shoulddo, especially when those
machines are making decisionsthat affect lives, rights or
democratic processes.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
And here's where it gets juicy.
They didn't just stop at ethics.
They linked ethics to designarchitecture.
That means fairness,explainability, transparency and
, yes, interoperability.
All start in the system designphase, not as a patch after
launch.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
Ethically aligned design influence not only
developers, but governments,standardization bodies and
companies trying to bake valuesinto their AI from day one into
their AI from day one.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
It's like the instruction manual for
responsible innovation, onlywith actual chapters on bias,
agency, sustainability andsocial justice.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
And while it's technically voluntary, this
framework shapes ISO workinggroups and even corporatic
sports.
If your AI startup says it'sethically designed, there's a
good chance it's following thisplaybook.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
So, yes, it came from engineers, but it landed
everywhere.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Prove that ethics isn't a soft science when it's
built into the source code.
Next up, we're headed to theOECD, where ethics meets
taxonomy, because before youregulate something, you've got
to agree on what it actually is.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Right.
One country's chatbot might beanother's automated decision
maker, with human consequences.
Without a shared language,trying to govern AI globally is
like playing chess withmismatched rule books.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
So the OECD said let's fix that.
They created a classificationframework to help policymakers,
regulators and developersdescribe AI systems based on
what they do, how risky they areand how humans interact with
them.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
This is semantic interoperability at its finest.
It's not about code.
It's about making sure that,whether you're in Tokyo, Toronto
or Tunis, when someone sayshigh-risk AI, everyone knows
what that means.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
The framework breaks down systems by input type,
learning method, autonomy leveland social impact, and it's
designed to work acrossregulatory models, whether
you're enforcing the EU AI Act,designing a sandbox in Kenya or
building an ethics board in.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Brazil and the best part, it's not just for
governments.
Developers, civil society,auditors and even startups can
use it to explain their systemsin plain language and make their
work compatible withinternational standards.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
So while it won't send you to court, it might just
get you through customs.
This is the kind of quietpolicy tool that enables trust,
transparency and collaboration,especially when the stakes are
high and the systems are opaque.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
The OECD didn't tell the world what to regulate.
They gave the world a map tonavigate what's already here.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
So far we've seen frameworks and declarations that
demode, but now we're enteringstandard territory where things
get certified, auditable andofficially laminated.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
That's right.
In December 2023, theInternational Organization for
Standardization and theInternational Electrotechnical
Commission dropped something bigISO slash IEC 42001, the first
global management systemstandard for AI.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
This isn't about whether your AI is cool or scary
.
It's about whether your entireorganization knows what it's
doing.
The standard covers governancestructure, risk controls,
documentation, audit trails,stakeholder engagement and
continuous improvement, andhere's the plot twist.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
It's sector numeral Health tech, finance, government
tools doesn't matter If youbuild AI.
Iso 4201 gives you a commongovernance language.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
But what makes it a superstar in our theme today is
this ISO 40-2001 is built forinteroperability.
It's designed to help your AIsystem play nice across
platforms, borders and supplychains without sacrificing trust
or accountability.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
And let's not forget the real world Flex, you can get
certified.
This isn't just guidance, it'ssomething you can be audited on,
show off and wave around in afunding pitch or government bid.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
So now, if you say your AI is ethical, secure and
transparent, you can prove itwith a stamp ISO slash.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
IEC 42001 is basically the gold standard for
grown up AI governance.
It's how you tell the world wedon't just build smart tech, we
run it responsibly.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
All right.
So the ink was barely dry onISO slash IEC 42001.
And within a year thecertification wave began.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Because nothing says trust me, like an
internationally recognized badge, and companies were lining up
fast.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
By early 2024,.
We saw early adopters insectors like healthcare, banking
and autonomous vehicles getcertified.
Why?
Because those are theindustries where a bad AI day
could land you in court or thenews.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Governments took notice too.
Japan encouraged domestic AIcompanies to get certified,
india's Bureau of Standardslaunched training programs and
Canada already tyingcertification benchmarks into
federal procurement.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
Even here in Switzerland, the early
certification pilots startedrolling out, blending the ISO
standard with national ethicalAI guidelines.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
It's not just compliance, it's positioning and
for global businesses, iso40-2001 certification became a
passport to credibility.
It tells partners, regulatorsand customers we're
interoperable, explainable andnot here to break things.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
Because, let's be honest, a lot of AI companies
talk a big game, but this, thisis the audit trail to back it up
and, from a global strategyperspective, this kind of
rollout helps reduce regulatorychaos.
Speaker 1 (38:01):
If everyone certifies against a shared standard,
cross-better AI suddenly getsway less messy.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
So if you're wondering where AI governance is
going, look for the logos.
The certification wave isn'tjust a trend, it's a signal of
market maturity.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
ISO 42001, because in 2025, interoperable and
accountable isn't a tagline,it's a competitive edge Up.
Next, we're shifting fromstandards bodies to diplomacy
rooms, and this one's atwo-parter the Global
Partnership on AI, icaca-gpaiand the G7 Hiroshima process.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
Let's start with GPAI , launched in 2020,.
This was the moment when 15countries, from the EU to India,
to the US, said we need to worktogether on AI that's safe,
fair and globally aligned.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
GPAI is in a treatment.
It's more like a globalco-working space where
researchers, civil society andpolicymakers tackle issues like
data governance, responsibleinnovation and yes
interoperability.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
Think of it as the R&D wing of global AI policy.
The reports and recommendationsthat emerge from GPAI often
feed directly into nationalstrategies and standard setting.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
And then it's Fast forward to 2023, when Japan held
the presidency of the G7 andlaunched the Hiroshima AI
process.
This was a huge moment.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
For the first time, G7 countries committed to a code
of conduct for advanced AIdevelopers, with core principles
like transparency, riskmanagement and international
alignment.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
And what was at the center of it all?
Interoperability.
Technical, legal, institutional, you name it.
The G7 agreed that theirsystems, safeguards and
definitions had to be mutuallycompatible or we'd all be stuck
in a global AI traffic jam.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
This wasn't just diplomacy.
It was a blueprint forharmonizing national strategies
so AI systems could scalewithout fragmenting global trust
.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
So, yes, GPAI and the Hiroshima process may not show
up in court, but they're shapingthe vocabulary, the priorities
and the roadmaps that countriesfollow next In short.
You don't need a binding treatywhen you've already aligned the
strategy and if your AIambitions go beyond borders,
(40:29):
this is the coordination thatlets your system travel legally
and ethically.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
Now let's zoom in on a region that's quietly building
one of the most ambitiousdigital ecosystems on the planet
Africa In 2022,.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
the African Union launched its data policy
framework a bold plan not justfor AI, but for digital
transformation across the entirecontinent for AI, but for
digital transformation acrossthe entire continent.
Speaker 3 (41:06):
The vision a harmonized, cross-bender digital
space where data can flow,systems can talk and innovation
doesn't get stuck at everynational firewall.
Speaker 1 (41:14):
And here's where it gets exciting.
For us, interoperability isn'ta footnote, it's a foundational
pillar.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
The framework calls for shared technical standards,
open protocols and institutionalcoordination between member
states.
That includes AI tools used inagriculture, healthcare, finance
and public services.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
It also pushes for regional cloud infrastructure,
local data processing andmultilingual AI interfaces, so
that systems can serve peoplewhere they are, in the languages
they speak and this isn't justabout tech.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
It's about sovereignty, development and
equity making sure that Africannations aren't just adopting
global AI systems, but shapingand exporting their own and in a
world where regulatory chaosoften holds AI back.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
the EU said what if we made interoperability the
default, not the afterthought?
Speaker 3 (42:07):
So, while others debate compliance, the African
Union is designing an ecosystemthat scales responsibly and
cooperatively.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
If you're looking for regional leadership in AI
governance, this isn't just anexample, it's a blueprint with
backbone.
Speaker 3 (42:23):
So far, we've taught frameworks, declarations and
voluntary standards, but nowwe're entering binding territory
.
Speaker 1 (42:33):
That's right.
The Council of Europe, home ofthe European Court of Human
Rights and one of the OGs ofinternational law, is drafting a
treaty that could become thefirst legally binding AI
convention in the world.
Speaker 3 (42:45):
Called the Convention on Artificial Intelligence,
Human Rights, Democracy and theRule of Law, or CII for short,
and yes, that title is doing alot of work.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
CII goes beyond ethics.
It's about rights, remedies andrules that stick If adopted.
Countries that sign on wouldneed to align their AI systems
with core democratic values andlegal guarantees, and here is
where it hits our theme.
Speaker 3 (43:13):
CAI includes provisions on interpretability
at the institutional level,ensuring AI oversight, audits
and legal processes can actuallycoordinate across borders.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Because, let's face it, an algorithm doesn't care
which legal system it's deployedin, but humans definitely do.
Speaker 3 (43:30):
The treaty is still under negotiation, but it's
already influencing nationallaws and global debates,
especially in Europe, latinAmerica and parts of Africa,
regions that often align withCouncil of Europe principles.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
And don't forget, the CAI would be open to
non-European countries too.
So we're talking about apotential global governance
mechanism, not just a regionalone.
Speaker 3 (43:56):
So while others are still drafting ethical charters,
the Council of Europe issetting up legal consequences.
Speaker 1 (44:07):
And, let's be honest, sometimes the only thing
stronger than a standard is asignature on a treaty with real
accountability.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Let's take a moment to bow to the Queen.
The General Data ProtectionRegulation, better known as GDPR
, didn't just change Europe.
It changed how the entire worldthinks about data.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Came into force in 2018, still causing compliance
panic in 2025.
Gdpr was one of the first lawsto say if your system processes
people's data, it better betransparent, fair and wait for
it interoperable.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
That's right GDPR baked in rights like data
portability and access, whichdon't work unless systems can
actually talk to each other.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
If you've ever downloaded your data from a
platform or transferred it to anew service, that's GDPR's
interoperability clause workingbehind the scenes.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
And even though it's European law, gdpr became the de
facto global benchmark, becauseif you want to do business in
the EU and, let's face it,everyone does you play by these
rules.
Speaker 1 (45:10):
AI systems, especially those trained or
operating on personal data, arenow being retrofitted to fit
GDPR's expectationsexplainability, user control,
legal basis, check, check andcheck.
Speaker 3 (45:21):
And while GDPR isn't an AI law per se, it paved the
way Because, once we acceptedthat data rights were real, we
had to figure out how to buildsystems that respect them by
design.
Speaker 1 (45:37):
So if AI wants to be global, it has to be GDPR ready.
And if it wants to be GDPRready, it better know how to
interoperate across borders,platforms and preferences.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
Still the gold standard, still bossing the tech
industry around, and still thereason every privacy notice
you've ever read sounds slightlypanic.
If GDPR was the EU's privacymind, drop.
The Digital Decade Declarationwas the strategy remix Less law,
more mission.
And that mission Make the EU adigitally sovereign,
(46:12):
interoperable and resilientbeast by 2030.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
This isn't a regulation, it's a commitment
statement, but it comes withmeasurable targets for digital
infrastructure, digital skills,digital business and digital
public services.
Speaker 3 (46:28):
And underneath it all , you guessed it
interoperability, because youcan't build a pan-European
digital ecosystem if everycountry is still coding in
isolation.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
The declaration pushes for cross-border services
, common data spaces andstandards that make public
systems plug and play across all27 member states.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
So, whether it's ID, health systems or justice
platforms, europe wants them tobe secure, portable and legally
compatible.
Speaker 1 (46:59):
This isn't just convenience, it's policy,
infrastructure and yes, AI is inthe mix too, as the EU rolls
out the AI Act.
The digital decade goals arewhat give those rules a place to
live Shared infrastructure,aligned standards and digital
trust across borders.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
So, while the declaration doesn't come with
fines or enforcement, it setsthe strategic tempo.
If GDPR was the what, this isthe how, fast and with who.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
And as the world watches, europe build its
interoperable digital machine,don't be surprised if these
benchmarks start popping up inother countries' national plans
too.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
It's the final reminder in our tour
interoperability isn't justtechnical, it's strategic and
deeply intentional.
All right, five things to carrywith you, whether you're coding
a chatbot, writing procurementpolicy or just trying not to get
sued by 2030.
Speaker 1 (47:57):
Quality.
One interoperability is both atech feature and a legal
battlefield.
If your AI can't connect, itmight not just be bad design, it
could be a standards war, apatent trap or the start of an
antitrust complaint.
Speaker 3 (48:12):
Two brand is the name of the game in standard setting
.
Fair, reasonable andnon-discriminatory isn't just
polite, it's enforceable.
And non-discriminatory isn'tjust polite, it's enforceable.
If you've pledged to licenseyour tag fairly, the courts will
hold you to it.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
No, take backs.
Three copyright doesn't coverAPIs or languages.
Yet Reverse engineering forcompatibility is still legal in
many places.
But tread lightly.
Not all jurisdictions speak thesame IP dialect.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
Four policies moving faster than ever, From ISO to
UNESCO, from the G7 to the AU.
Standards and ethicalframeworks are popping up like
cookies on a news site.
Read before you click accessFive.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
The future will be interoperable or it won't work
at all.
Despite the noise, we'rewitnessing a slow but steady
global convergence.
If your AI wants to scale,partner or govern anything,
you'll need a passport ofcompliance, auditable systems
and a really good lawyer.
I'll advise you to court lawyer.
(49:21):
That's a wrap on Plug, play orPay.
If today's episode gave youlegal whiplash, good, that's
what happens when the wholeworld races to set the rules.
And remember it's not aboutbuilding the smartest AI.
It's about building one thatcan collaborate, comply and
scale without taking down theecosystem or your company.
Thanks for listening.
Until next time, stay connected, stay compliant and stay clever
(49:43):
.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(50:04):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!