The key ethical requirements for all AI technologies, including facial recognition technology (FRT), is their transparency and explainability. This chapter first identifies the extent to which transparency and explainability is needed in relation to FRT among different stakeholders. Second, after briefly examining which types of information about AI could be potentially protected as trade secrets, it identifies situations where trade secret protection may inhibit transparent and explainable FRT. It then analyses whether the current trade secret law, in particular the ‘public interest’ exception, is capable of addressing the conflict between the proprietary interests of trade secret owners and artificial intelligence transparency needs of certain stake holders. This chapter focusses on FRT in law enforcement, with a greater emphasis on real-time biometric identification technologies that are considered the highest risk.

How do you read a patent and what subject matter is patentable? What is the purpose of a patent? Who is an inventor on the patent if work is done by many people on the project? What is the process of obtaining a patent in my country and globally? Read this chapter to see how you could lose commercialization rights to your own invention. When exactly does an invention or idea become patentable? Once you own a patent, how can you make money from it? What is the process of licensing and the key terms that should be negotiated in such a license agreement? What is the use of a copyright or a trade secret in biotech? What exactly constitutes patent infringement ? These questions and many others are addressed in this chapter on intellectual property.

This chapter presents some preliminary evidence about the way both mining firms and suppliers innovate in Chile and whether (and, if yes, how) they protect their innovations. It includes semi-structured interviews with senior executives at a sample of Chilean mining firms, mining, equipment, technology and services (METS) and universities. This analysis is complemented with information coming from an online survey applied to 300 Chilean METS. Finally, a group of twenty lawyers specializing in intellectual property was surveyed to provide their opinions regarding: the role of IP in the mining sector, the likely benefits of the introduction of a patent box mechanism in the Chilean legislation, and the role the Chilean IP Office (INAPI) is playing in this area. Interviews with INAPI’s senior staff members also present the policies implemented over the last years in order to promote the use of IP instruments in the mining sector.

Automated driving systems (ADSs) are growing exponentially as one of the most promising AI applications. ADSs promise to transform ways in which people commute and connect with one another, altering the conventional division of labor, social interactions, and provision of services. Regulatory issues such as testing and safety, cybersecurity, connectivity, liability, and insurance are driving governments to establish comprehensive and consistent policy frameworks. Of key importance is ADSs’ ethical challenges. How to align ADS development with fundamental ethical principles embedded in a society remains a difficult question. The “Trolley Problem” aptly demonstrates such tension. While it seems essential to have rules and standards reflecting local values and contexts, potential conflicts and duplication may have serious trade implications in terms of how ADS is designed, manufactured, distributed, serviced, and driven across borders. This chapter examines the multifaceted, complex regulatory issues related to ADS and uses the most controversial, ethical dimension to analyze the tensions between the protection of public morals and trade secrets under the WTO. It unpacks three levels of challenges that may translate into a regulatory dilemma in light of WTO members’ rights and obligations under GATT, TBT Agreement, and the TRIPS Agreement and identifies possible venues of reconfiguration.

The growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), combined with advances in the technology and the recent denial of patents to an AI inventor by the European and American patent offices, are necessitating a critical examination of the profound role the IP system has on AI, not only because IP rights can protect AI-related inventions and creations, but also because they can block access to key AI technologies. But such a review raises complicated IP, technical, legal, data-related, social and philosophical issues. For example, if the IP system is designed to encourage creation and invention, in large part through the recognition and reward of creative and inventive endeavour, who or what should be allowed to benefit from it – a human with an artificial identity; a human enhanced with AI; or an AI itself? And if not an AI, then what types of inventions or creations, created with the assistance of AI, deserve IP protection? This chapter attempts to help readers better appreciate the emerging and complex questions regarding IP and AI including what IP is in the context of AI, why things have gotten so complicated and the conundrum we now face of whether to prioritise progress or human interests.

Chapter 5 focuses on the domain of international trade. In this chapter, we claim that states often withhold economic information that is essential for adjudicating trade disputes because they fear harmful reactions by market actors. We demonstrate that properly designed international organizations can ameliorate this problem by receiving and protecting such information. After formalizing our theory, we assess our hypotheses using new data on information sharing with the World Trade Organization. We show that key reforms designed to safeguard sensitive information increased the provision of this information and boosted trade cooperation in relevant industries. We conclude by discussing how solving this pervasive issue puts international trade institutions in tension with the normative goals of transparency and accountability.

In Chapter 7, we focus on the domain of foreign direct investment (FDI). We claim that states often refrain from sharing sensitive economic information, even though it can be important to adjudicating investment disputes. We demonstrate that properly designed IOs, such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), can ameliorate this problem by receiving and protecting sensitive information. We assess our hypotheses using new data on specific pieces of information shared – along with information withheld – from this institution. Specifically, we pair a measure of redactions in publicly released panel reports with qualitative case evidence. We show that key reforms designed to safeguard sensitive information increased the provision of this information and boosted FDI, especially in areas where sensitive information is particularly common. We conclude the chapter by discussing how solving this pervasive issue puts international investment institutions in tension with the normative goals of transparency and accountability.