Throughout most of the twentieth century an exceedingly narrow interpretation and application of the utilitarian rationale for intellectual property protection dominated much of Western intellectual property (IP) law and policy.1 This was especially evident in the United States, wherein an economic incentive/commodification approach to IP social utility pervaded IP jurisprudence and scholarly discourse. In essence, that limited perception of the utilitarian economic incentive approach to stimulating IP endeavor, including among other things, the production of patentable inventions and copyrightable expressive works, was premised on the belief that IP endeavor is most effectively promoted by providing individuals with nearly absolute property rights in their IP output and the accompanying prospect of monetary rewards for their intellectual labors. Concomitantly, the commercial marketplace would not only determine the “rules of engagement” for IP production and dissemination, but also incentivize and determine the quality and quantity of IP output. Such an approach would result, by design, in IP innovators and creators devoting their energies to producing the kind of IP products that the public was willing to pay for, with little incentive to engage in “nonessential” IP activity unlikely to bring adequate economic returns.

A trade secret is any economically valuable information which provides an actual or potential competitive advantage to the owner of the information because the information is secret.1 Trade secret protection can be an important driver of innovation, inclusion, and empowerment. But legal protection for trade secrets can also undermine those interests if the protection granted is not properly balanced by other interests such as employee mobility and the ability to build on existing information. A distinguishing feature of trade secret IP is that the essential bargain which underlies utilitarian innovation as embodied in patent law – the grant of a monopoly to exploit the patent for a limited time in exchange for making the information public2 – is not present.

We are just at the beginning of the AI revolution and already it is transforming human society.2 In history, only four other technologies have transformed human life as profoundly as AI will: steam power that powered the industrial revolution; electricity that transformed everything; the development of antibiotics and medical understanding and treatment generally; and computers and pre-AI software creating the information age. As we move into the AI world, we face significant challenges with respect to shaping our world. A significant part of that shaping will be determined by how we collectively choose to reward and regulate AI implementations.3 And a part of that shaping will depend upon how we address intellectual property issues connected to artificial intelligence applications. This chapter sketches some of the concerns and suggests a path forward that directly responds to the challenge posed by Buckminster Fuller in this chapter’s framing epigraph.