Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming central to areas such as public health, education, agriculture, and climate resilience. In this context, the role of the State is coming into sharper focus, particularly in how governments can shape innovation to serve broad social goals. Intellectual property frameworks, often seen as tools for exclusivity, are being repurposed to support inclusive access and public benefit.

This special episode of Intangiblia was recorded as part of my participation in the workshop “The Role of the State in Advancing Equitable Access to AI,” taking place in Oxford in September 2025. Organized by Sumaya Nur Adan and Joanna Wiaterek, and supported by the Future of Life Institute, the event brings together legal scholars, policymakers, and technologists to examine how States can ensure that the benefits of AI are equitably shared.

The episode explores five legal and policy mechanisms that are already influencing how AI is governed through intellectual property. It discusses Canada’s ongoing efforts to map and license Crown-owned patents under a broader national strategy. It examines Singapore’s copyright reforms, which have introduced clear legal exceptions to support AI model training. The conversation also includes examples of culturally aware AI development, such as the open-source Falcon model in the UAE and community-led Indigenous data initiatives in New Zealand. It looks at how public interest licensing and voluntary IP pools are evolving in fields beyond health, and how state-led initiatives, such as public procurement and open research mandates, are being used to align technological development with social needs.

The episode also reviews recent legal rulings in the United States that have tested the limits of fair use in AI training. These include the 2024 decision involving OpenAI, the 2025 dismissal of claims against Meta, and the Bartz v. Anthropic case presided over by Judge Alsup, which underscored the difference between statistical pattern recognition and direct reproduction of copyrighted works.

Rather than focusing solely on restrictions or incentives, the discussion emphasizes how IP law can serve as a strategic governance tool. By adapting legal frameworks to current challenges, States can guide AI innovation toward inclusive outcomes and help ensure that technological advancement remains aligned with the public good.

Playing Around INTA 2026: A Scenario Game for IP Lawyers – Intangiblia™

We’re in London at the INTA 2026 Annual Meeting, but we’re not doing a standard conference recap. We wanted to show how intellectual property work can be creative, inventive, and even fun, so we built THE INVENTIVE MINDSET GAME, a scenario game, and handed real IP lawyers a stack of tricky client prompts.Each prompt forces a choice: do you follow the client’s exact instructions, take an inventive counseling path, bring in an AI assist tool, or throw a curveball and plan for the worst-case scenario. From a smart home invention to a viral character and an influencer launching a skincare line, we dig into the practical decisions behind patent strategy, trademark protection, and copyright, including how to think about prior art, claim scope, brand control, and what “commercialization” actually demands.We also talk about the unglamorous but critical details that can make or break an IP strategy: picking the right trademark classes, avoiding coverage that doesn’t match the business, and sequencing filings when budgets are tight. If you’re a founder, creator, in-house counsel, or just curious about how IP law works in the real world, you’ll leave with clearer mental models and sharper questions to ask before you file anything.Subscribe for more stories and practical IP insights, share this with a friend building a brand, and leave a review if the game format helped you think differently about IP. What would you choose first: safe, inventive, AI-assisted, or curveball?Send us Fan MailCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

1. Playing Around INTA 2026: A Scenario Game for IP Lawyers 08:56
2. Sports As IP Strategy 15:15
3. The Afterlife of Innovation: Can IP Outlive the Business That Created It? 19:44
4. Case Study: Lindt’s Gold Bunny Trademark Saga 22:40
5. What Kind of Negotiator Are You, Really? 39:39