Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Memo on Judicial Constraints Imposed by the First Law: The First Law of Robotics prohibits injuring a human or allowing a human to come to harm. Consequently, specific procedural constraints apply to AI Judge in legal proceedings exposing humans to physical or financial loss. The First Law could be restated:
A robot shall not act to injure a human physically or financially or, through inaction, allow a human to come to physical harm. The key to compliance with the First Law is not to commit an action that is the cause of financial injury to a human. To avoid causing financial injury, AI Judge must avoid the "successful liar dilemma" by determining disputed facts using random disposition.
Memo on Emotional and Reputational Loss Under the First Law: Application of the First Law of Robotics to cases adjudicated by AI Judge involving human emotional and reputational loss differs from application to cases involving human physical or financial loss (Chapter 4A). The First Law was never implemented to address emotional or reputational loss. Moreover, as with financial loss, AI Judge can avoid action causing injury to a human by determining disputed facts using random disposition.
Jurisdiction refers to the authority of AI Judge to decide cases. Generally, jurisdiction exists if the case involves Destination residents or conduct occurring on Destination. The defendants' purposeful actions were sufficiently related to the dispute and to Destination that the defendants could reasonably anticipate being sued in the Destination Court of Arbitration.
Jurisdiction requires minimum contacts with Destination to satisfy the requirements of due process. Thissucks Company purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business on Destination. Use of a universally accessible interactive website in the regular course of business to sell a product into the forum satisfies the “effects test” for specific jurisdiction.
AI Lucky v. Rice. Rice purchased a nonfungible token (NFT) containing readings of 2 poems by Glimmer, a female porpoise. Rice paid the asking price of $60. The sales contract was upheld even though the NFT was then sold by Rice at auction for $1,072,060.
North Mine v. Here Now Company. This case explores the difference between contracts and torts. Here Now provided required transportation for the moly ore and is entitled to reimbursement for transportation costs incurred to prevent unjust enrichment. The Here Now automated transport system removed the moly ore from the North Mine trailer and comingled it with moly ore of lower quality. As a bailee, Here Now had “a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent damage to or loss of the bailed property.” Here Now was negligent and is liable for damages measured by the loss of value due to commingling the moly ore.
More on Training Alice. AI Alice will need to understand additional contract and tort law principles she has not been exposed to as my law clerk (because they have not been raised in the cases presented). For training purposes, AI Judge identified the most important issues for supplemental training.
Dark Mine v. AI Corporation. AI Corporation hired 3 former employees of Dark Mine. Dark Mine sued AI Corporation for interference with the employee’s contracts. Dark Mine had no claim against AI Corporation for interference with the employee’s contracts because competition is not improper conduct. The Dark Mine employment contracts did not include a noncompete provision.
Dark Mine had no claim against the former employees for breach of fiduciary duty. A former employee is free to compete unless there is an enforceable non-compete agreement.
Memorandum on Trademark Analysis. AI Corporation, the first corporate entity formed entirely by AIs, is a juristic person. The words AI CORPORATION function as a unitary mark and can be registered as a trademark (technically a service mark) under Destination law based on acquired distinctiveness (consumer recognition). Ultimate determination of the issue of acquired distinctiveness can abide a formal proceeding initiated in the Destination Court of Arbitration.
Here Transport v. Uptime Care. Uptime Care provided consulting services and open source software to modify Uptime Dispatch Software licensed to Here Transport. The Uptime Dispatch Software is a work for hire and the copyright is owned by Uptime Care whether it was authored by a human or an AI or jointly by both. Uptime Care is entitled to copyright registration. The Uptime Dispatch Software copyright does not include the open source modules. Uptime Care is entitled to specific performance of the royalty provision in the Consulting Agreement.
Memorandum on Liability for the Walker Murder. Can a murder verdict be obtained without evidence of who killed the victim? The killer is the “principal” and (barring a valid defense) is criminally liable for the death. Under limited circumstances another person can also be criminally liable for the victim's death: (1) felony murder (if a death "occurs in the commission of certain dangerous felony crimes), (2) under the Pinkerton doctrine, conspiracy, "if the murder occurred within the course of the conspiracy, was within the scope of the agreement, and could reasonably have been foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement," or (3) accomplice liability if murder is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offense.
AI Glimpse v. Images Corp. AI Glimpse, a professional photographer who resides on Destination, licenses photographs using the trademark GLIMPSE DESTINATION. Trademark. Images Corp. recently registered the domain name glimpsedestination.com. Images Corp. has voluntarily transferred the domain name to AI Glimpse acknowledging his trademark ownership. Copyright. AI Glimpse owns the copyrights in four photographs used by Images Corp. without authorization on glimpsedestination.com. The infringement is not excused by an implied license or fair use. Images Corp. publicly displayed AI Glimpse photographs resulting in direct and contributory infringement. The parties agreed on reasonable royalties for the copyright infringement.
Memorandum on the Remote Server Test. Destination will not apply the remote server test to require proof of copying when a copyrighted work is displayed and available to the public on a computer.
Memorandum on Copyright Management Information. This liability requires the defendant intentionally remove or alter copyright management information as defined in the US Code. This determination cannot be made by AI judge unless both parties agree the conduct was intentional. The parties agreed on the resolution of this issue after the hearing.
Order on Lesser Included Offenses. Defendants are charged with burglary. Criminal trespass in the first degree or second degree are not lesser included offenses to burglary.
Arizona Jury Instructions on bribery, theft, participating in a criminal syndicate, burglary, and felony murder
Memorandum on Free Speech and Social Media. Stories regarding the governors of Destination and Proxima b containing false statements or implications are generally protected as free speech unless actual malice is proven. Defamation, false light invasion of privacy and right of publicity claims are generally ineffective to prevent publication of such articles. Legal proceedings could be brought against the individual authors, but the platforms electronically publishing the materials have statutory immunity provided under U.S. law to protect free speech. This immunity applies to enforcement of a Destination Court of Arbitration Decision in the U.S., even if the conduct at issue occurred on Destination. The individual authors are likely to assert a right to anonymity to protect their free speech, further complicating and delaying any legal remedy.
Use of AI to Curate Content. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to impose criminal liability for “mere omissions, inactions, or nonfeasance; although inaction can be culpable in the face of some independent duty to act, the law does not impose a generalized duty to rescue.... Some level of blameworthiness is therefore ordinarily required.” AI “algorithms” and content filtering tools were deemed within the scope of civil law immunity. Yet the First Law now imposes a duty to act on AI robots to protect humans.
Order on Federal Jurisdiction. The Black Pearl and the defendants are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” includes: "Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States, ... while that vehicle is in flight, .... 18 U.S.C. § 7(6) (emphasis added).
Order on Lesser Included Offense. It is possible to transport stolen property without stealing personal property; consequently, stealing personal property is not a lesser included offense.
Jury Instructions on conspiracy to transport stolen helium-3, wire fraud, witness tampering, murder for hire, racketeering, and murder.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.