The King’s Speech
The newly elected Labour government has had its hands full both on the domestic and international front since Sir Keir Starmer KC took office, but the King’s Speech gave some hints as to the direction of travel regarding technology regulation. Although the widely anticipated UK AI Bill has been kicked into the long grass, a couple of new pieces of digital legislation were given the green light.
Digital Information and Smart Data Bill
This bill aims to enable secure data sharing between citizens and public services using various methods. These include Digital Verification Services (a type of digital identity scheme), a National Underground Asset Register (used for planning and work involving pipes and cables etc) and Smart Data schemes (streamlining the consensual sharing of customer data, similar to Open Banking/PSD2).
Other goals include fast-tracking access to mass public data for purposes of scientific research, as well as modernising and further empowering the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
This bill aims to strengthen the resilience of critical public services (such as hospitals) to cyberattacks, to try and prevent large-scale malicious hacks on the NHS and crucial infrastructure. It will also mandate corporate reporting of cybersecurity breaches.
Patentability of AI inventions
The Court of Appeal, in the case of Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825, held that an invention involving an artificial neural network was covered by the computer program “as such” exclusions under s.1(2) of the Patent Act 1977 (which essentially prevent computer programs from being patentable unless they provide a new “technical solution” to a “technical problem”). The broad implication of the ruling is that UK courts are not yet distinguishing artificial intelligence tools from general purpose computer programs, which comes as a disappointment to some AI companies who were hopeful that it would be easier to secure patents for their products following the initial High Court judgment.
Commenting, Harry Muttock, a patents expert at Pinsent Masons, says that it’s nevertheless still possible for AI developers to obtain patent protection for their inventions: “The High Court’s ruling had suggested that trained software would be easier to patent than other types of software, but while the Court of Appeal has now clarified that that is not the case, it does not mean it is any harder for AI developers to patent their inventions than it is for other types of software. While there are hurdles to clear, as this new ruling highlights, software patents are possible, are an option, and can be commercially advantageous”.
Cybersecurity governance
The second version of the EU’s Network and Information Security Directive (NIS 2) comes into force on 17 October 2024, tightening up cybersecurity rules and corporate governance requirements across member states. Although not directly applicable to the UK post-Brexit, any British businesses which operate internationally or have EU customers/users will need to adapt their processes to ensure they comply with the heightened measures under the new Directive, such as tightened reporting obligations and greater oversight of their supply chain.
Interestingly, one of the key new requirements under NIS2 – that critical public sectors such as “energy, transport, water, banking, financial market infrastructures, healthcare and digital infrastructure” boost their cybersecurity regime – is reflected in the aforementioned Cyber Security and Resilience Bill.
Google monopoly
A landmark antitrust judgment across the pond has found Google guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly in internet search. The core issue of contention appears to be the fact that the search giant pays billions of dollars to other tech behemoths such as Apple, to ensure that its search engine is the default of third party browsers such as Safari, thereby stifling competition for digital ads from the likes of Yelp.
Providing his judgment, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said: “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”
According to some reports, it is understood that the US Department of Justice could be considering breaking up Google’s parent company, Alphabet, to combat anti-competitive practices. However, it’s probably wise to temper predictions of any major changes, when recalling the similar ruling against Microsoft related to its “internet explorer” browser a quarter of a century ago, which essentially petered out following appeals.
Country of origin principle
Although it’s an EU-centric judgment, it’s worth briefly noting a recent case heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in which the “country of origin” principle (established by the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31) was affirmed. In this case, the Italian Communications Authority (AGCOM) had made a range of requests of big tech companies not based in Italy. The companies successfully argued that AGCOM could not make such requests from information society services based in other member states.
UK riots – consequences for social media platforms
There have been many debates regarding freedom of speech and social media moderation in the wake of the recent riots across the UK. Although most of the legal implications relate to the fast-tracking of prosecutions, the Online Safety Act has been cited as a key tool in curtailing future civil disturbance. To this end, Ofcom published an open letter following the riots, warning social media companies of impending codes of practice which will impose further obligations, and imploring them to “act now” to prevent further unrest.
Alex Heshmaty is technology editor for the Newsletter. He runs Legal Words, a legal copywriting agency based in the Silicon Gorge. Email alex@legalwords.co.uk.
Photo by Jesse Gardner on Unsplash (cropped).
