Chapter 23 stresses that four sets of ideas need to be added to the principles and the topics of focus mentioned in Chapter 22. First, neither international order nor national order can be sustainable if the contradiction that exists today between, on the one hand, the celebration of human rights and, on the other hand, the tendency to treat individuals as disposable, deepens or simply persists. Second, the global justice agenda cannot credibly claim to be feasible if it does not factor in the views of the rest of the world. It is imperative to integrate what the non-West thinks. The ownership of a global agenda cannot be lopsided. Third, a cosmopolitan approach does not have to call for the removal or elimination of the state and sovereignty; rather, it is their reconceptualization and the application of this reconceptualization that are recommended. Fourth, institutional innovation will help implement this agenda.

With the rise of strategic rivalry and geopolitical competition, governments turned to economic policy to gain influence, power, and resources. The defining feature became the pursuit of national interest, which was invoked to introduce investment screening policies, increase tariffs, prevent cross-border M&A deals, expropriate assets, restrict technology transfer, provide preferential subsidies, and create national champions. To respond effectively, global companies must recognize the systemic changes underway and develop capabilities to address them. Companies need to acknowledge that they will come to be defined by their nationality and innovation is an important battlefield. Government policies to contain the influence of foreign firms from adversarial countries cluster around four levers: market access, level playing field, investment security, and institutional alignment. To actively manage geopolitical tensions, companies need to assess how geopolitics will share their resources, competitive advantage, and firm organization. They need to develop skills to scan the global landscape, personalize the information, plan the response, and pivot if there are headwinds. Impact on employees, who works, how work is performed, and where it takes place need to be evaluated. Managing policymakers becomes a crucial part of managing a global business.

The promise of global innovation lies in the unlikely combination of knowledge and information from different sources and locations. Companies that can scan the globe for fresh ideas and integrate knowledge from multiple subsidiaries around the world stand the best chance of generating innovative solutions. However, innovation is also one of the central arenas of geopolitical tensions. Governments aim to have a leg up in the innovation contest for national security and economic competitiveness. Consequently, when geopolitical tensions increase, governments strive to keep innovations at home and increase barriers to the cross-border flow of cutting-edge knowledge, technology, and information. Multiple technology standards further increase the challenges of cross-border knowledge integration. Companies withdraw or scale back foreign innovation efforts and the flow of ideas, talent, and resources slows. Proactive companies and managers strive to balance knowledge diversity with geopolitical risk, keep more sensitive projects at home, adopt operational strategies to have greater control over innovation, and differentiate between technologies.

Traditional clinical training has often lacked the leadership and management skills necessary for practitioners to effectively drive change. Despite facing systemic pressures and resource limitations, clinicians can be agents of change by innovating within their work environments. Practising self-care and understanding the benefits of Lifestyle Medicine are essential for healthcare practitioners to sustain their wellbeing and energy for these changes. The transformation of healthcare environments to encourage healthier choices can profoundly affect the wellbeing of both staff and patients. Large-scale change can be fostered by engaging with the community and connecting patients to local groups and activities. The UK has seen examples of successful Lifestyle Medicine projects and we explore some examples of success in this chapter. To innovate in healthcare, one must be clear about their motivation, be prepared to initiate projects without initial funding, plan for their evaluation, and ensure that the projects are enjoyable for all participants involved.

Chapter 14 presents a dynamic model of long-term, art historical trends and shows the complexity of overlapping styles and movements. It is based on a modification af a dynamic model of development on the timescale of the human life course. The basic evolution rules are those of simultaneously operating processes of consolidation of the status quo and processes of innovation driven by a familiarity-novelty optimum. The simulation explores different scenarios, one of which generates the typical art-historical pattern of overlapping continuous as well as discontinuous processes.

There are myriad open questions and challenges for the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system and the unitary patent, which constitute a new layer to the European patent landscape on top of the existing courts and types of patents. One of those is the question of how this new system will interact with utility models, which seems to have mostly escaped academic scrutiny so far. This chapter explores this interaction, focusing predominantly on the consequences of the new unitary patent and the UPC for strategies surrounding patents and utility models, including the division of judicial competence. By considering, amongst other things, the complicated relationship and overlap of these rights, the limited but influential mandate of the UPC, the fragmented landscape for utility models, and the different sources of law governing a unitary patent, this chapter examines how litigation before the UPC may affect (strategies involving) utility models.

Since 1985, when China’s first Patent Law came into effect, China has established a legal protection system for utility models. At present, after four revisions of the Patent Law, China’s utility model patent legal system has also been improved. However, among the authorized utility model patents, those that fully meet the necessary conditions of novelty and inventive step might be in the minority. Of course, this phenomenon is not unique in China. The purpose of this chapter is to illuminate the ongoing optimization of the Chinese utility model patent system in the context of the development of China’s overall patent system. Accordingly, Part Ⅰ traces the emergence of China’s Patent System, including the Chinese utility model patent-based subsystem. Part Ⅱ centers on the basic contours of the Chinese utility model patent system. Part Ⅲ then summarizes existing deficiencies of the Chinese utility model patent system and future development trends. It concludes with a discussion of potential implications of proposed revisions to the Chinese utility model patent system.

In Germany, the utility model is a type of intellectual property right that provides protection for novel and useful inventions. It is governed by the German Utility Model Act (“Gebrauchsmustergesetz” – GebrMG) which was enacted in 1891, making it the oldest still-existing utility model system in the world. Utility models grant the right holder exclusive control over the use and commercialisation of an invention for a period of ten years from the date of filing, subject to the payment of annual renewal fees. In a way, the utility model is the “little sister” of a full-fledged patent (also called a “petty patent”), protecting the same type of subject matter (technical inventions) with a more limited scope.

While national rules regarding the scope, availability and issuance of utility models vary from country to country, most utility model regimes offer protection for tangible products, with many, but not all, jurisdictions excluding processes, biological materials and computer software from the scope of protection. The duration of utility model protection ranges from five to fifteen years, with most countries offering ten years of protection. In most countries, utility model applications are not formally examined and must simply disclose the product in question. Given the lack of examination, obtaining utility models is generally viewed as faster and cheaper than obtaining patents. This combination of speed and cost, in theory, makes utility models potentially attractive to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that cannot afford to obtain full patent protection. Similar considerations have also been raised as advantageous to innovators in low-income countries.

In virtually all societal domains, algorithmic systems, and AI more particularly, have made a grand entrance. Their growing impact renders it increasingly important to understand and assess the challenges and opportunities they raise – an endeavor to which this book aims to contribute. In this chapter, I start by putting the current “AI hype” into context. I emphasize the long history of human fascination with artificial beings; the fact that AI is but one of many powerful technologies that humanity has grappled with over time; and the fact that its uptake is inherently enabled by our societal condition. Subsequently, I introduce the chapters of this book, dealing with AI, ethics and philosophy (Part I); AI, law and policy (Part II); and AI across sectors (Part III). Finally, I discuss some conundrums faced by all scholars in this field, concerning the relationship between law, ethics and policy and their roles in AI governance; the juxtaposition between protection and innovation; and law’s (in)ability to regulate a continuously evolving technology. While their solutions are far from simple, I conclude there is great value in acknowledging the complexity of what is at stake and the need for more nuance in the AI governance debate.