Legal Disputes of the Future

Who owns food? Who pays for this accident? Who owns my face? Who owns the Arctic? Who owns the Pacific Ocean? Who owns the sky? These sound like some ridiculous questions at first glance but let's take a second look at the future through the Great Karnak's trusty crystal ball.

Who owns food?

Let's start with this one, since it has, more or less, already taken place. A small landowner in Nebraska named Bill parks his tractor in the shed after a long day of work in the fields. He wipes sixteen hours worth of sweat off his brow while he opens his mail. All bills. Two men in dark suits approach him at the front door and hand him a subpoena. The farmer opens the subpoena, quite surprised to learn he's being sued by a major US corporation for copyright infringement. It's a huge settlement they're after – in the millions. He does not have one tenth of what they're asking in damages. Since he sits on a tractor most days, he has not gotten the faintest notification how he could have named in a suit for copyright infringement. He's certain they've got a case of mistaken identity and places the document at the bottom of a pile of correspondence, making a mental note to consult his lawyer about what to do with the nuisance suit.

Rest assured, it's no mistake. The large US corporation spent millions in developing a strand of DNA for corn that is resistant to a pesticide they also own. When you buy their corn seeds and use their pesticide for your crops, you'll get excellent results. They copyright the strand of corn DNA they worked to develop. To protect the investment in DNA research they hire over seventy-five corporate lawyers to aggressively violate copyright 'thieves'. They have to establish a legal precedent that attests a lot of publicity; they intend to branch out into other food stuffs, such as eggs that last longer on the shelf, wheat that produces heavier grain, chickens that add weight quickly, beef that responds to their brand of steroids in cattle foods. The list is endless, and it's all going to be done by protecting copyrighted DNA strands.

Bill consults his country lawyer about the suit, explaining that he has stolen nothing in his life from anyone. The lawyer does a bit of researching and discovers he's opposed to the brief by some of the best legal minds in history, paid for by a Dow Jones multinational. He first explains to the multinational that his client does not know how the patented corn seed got into his fields. Possibly the seed cleaning company that strips seeds off Bill's corn for next year's crop has intermingled patented seeds with his. He tries to offer a settlement but this is not what the corporation wants. They want a trial. They wish to establish for the record that they're prepared to sue if anyone grows their corn without paying them for the seeds.

Bill and the country lawyer lose the case which costs him more than he can pay in damages and legal costs. He appeals. The appeal also loses right up to the Supreme Court since copyright law is sacrosanct in the US Intellectual property, in this case a section of DNA, is property protected by the highest court in the land. Bill's house, farm and equipment are sold at auction to the highest bidder, and the proceeds given to a multinational worth more than a quarter trillion in market cap. The proceeds do not cover the cost of one of the lawyers for one year, but they've earned an important victory – they own food.

Who pays for this accident?

Late June, 2016. A new electric car with one occupant is proceeding along a Florida highway within the speed limit. Up ahead, a tractor trailer crossing the pavement at an intersection blocks the way. The driver, who has the vehicle on 'auto-pilot' is reading work-related files and does not see the upcoming collision; he trusts his car will react properly and put on the brakes, as advertized. The software or hardware on the car malfunctions, the result is that the car smashes at full speed into the trailer blocking the road, disintegrating the car and killing its occupant.

Within hours of learning of the crash, the vehicle manufacturer issues a statement: 'Either the auto-pilot nor the driver saw the tractor trailer in the blind sun', trying to diminish responsibility by including the driver's inattention to the road. A sharp lawyer advises the family of the Deceased to sue, since, by definition, he was not the driver; the car company's software was driving. The driver of the tractor trailer is found blameless because it was possible to avoid the accident, just as every other vehicle did in this situation.

The impending lawsuit sends shivers down the corporate world's spine. Will they be forced to halt production of their cars? Offer compensation in the billions as GM or Ford experienced? Will it affect future car sales? Will there be expensive recalls? Their very survival hangs in the balance on the out of this legal battle. The car company uses as its indemnity the disclaimer every software user accepts before they can switch on the 'auto-pilot'. Use at your own risk, they say, just like all software. If a calculator gives you the wrong answer, is the calculator manufacturer to blame if you make a wrong bid on a billion dollar tower construction and lose your shirt because of it? No, it's the user's responsibility to check all calculations.

Not so fast, says the family's lawyer. I present to you as evidence sales material from the car company showing people in these cars on 'auto-pilot' busily reading files related to work, texting on their phones, eating sandwiches and coffee, streaming movies. The company has promoted the auto-pilot as reliable, in fact more reliable than humans. The manufacturer, in order to sell the product, has accepted the responsibility for the safety of its passengers, or users, by heavily illustrating that users can relax while the software guides them safely to their destinations. It's the car company that killed their client, no one else, by encouraging the car buyers to trust the software to the extent that they do not have to pay attention to the road ahead. Why else would you buy it?

Insurance companies are prepared to fund the legal challenge to a successful outlet. They want a clear definition of who's at fault before they begin underwriting any more policies. Driverless car manufacturers are rushing headlong into the intersection of Lawyer and Technology Streets with their eyes closed. Keep watching this space, you'll never see a bigger smash-up.

Who owns my face?

Brad Pratt is a famous movie star. His wife Angie Groaner is too. They're fed up to the teeth with being filmed by paparazzi. Brad is filmed in public toilets. Angie is filmed at the doctor's office. What gets them most upset is they're captured on film with their kids. They do not have a moment to themselves, not even after they move from the US to the outskirts of London, England. Every time they walk past a newsstand they look the other way so they do not have to read headlines about themselves in stories they did not sanction. Angie especially deplores the stories depicting her children as alien babies. Paparazzi invade their lives every waking, sometimes not waking, moment.

That's the price of fame say the news organizations. Bullpoop, says Brad, and I'm going to come up with a way to stop it. Unbeknownst to the so-called 'news' media, Brad and Angie consult with the best legal minds and come up with a solution: trademark their faces.

A trademark is the copyright of an image related to the conduct of business, and since Brad and Angie's faces are their business (worth millions), they're well within their rights to trademark their mugs. They take a 360 ° view of their faces and deposit them with all the necessary paperwork at every major trademark registration office through the world.

They can not wait for their first lawsuit to prove the concept. Soon, a tabloid prints the story, 'Brad and Angie Have Alien Twins'. The photographer and Celebrity Ogler are served with an invitation to attend court in every country in which they publish.

The photog is a nobody with a camera. He's paid up to a quarter of a million dollars for candid shots depicting Brad on the toilet or Angie in a dress shop changing room. He explains that Celebrity Ogler paid him to take these pictures on a spec basis. The more revealing and damaging the photo, the more they get paid, so anything goes, regardless of the rules of common courty or decency.

The publisher, Celebrity Ogler, claims that the two famous people made their millions by being in the public eye, and if it were not for news and tabloids, the couple would be living in anonymity. They benefited from free publicity for their rise to stardom and now it's simply inconvenient to them. They also appeal in most countries, it's their constitutional right to publish news stories related to anyone, regardless of their position in society. What if they were guilty of murder, could we be warned from displaying their pictures on newspapers?

Pratt and Groaner's legal team argues that their trademark, central to their business of making films, has been used without their permission and that both the photographer and the publisher have profited using someone else's copyrighted image. These magazines are not reporting 'news'; they rely on sales of their tabloids based on the already established popularity of their subjects. Now that they have trademarked their faces, the defenders have profited off someone else's popularity and their image.

The court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. They're awarded damages and any further use of their trademark images can only be done by permission. It will be a very long time before Pratt and Groaner give permission for strangers to take their picture. A new business for trade-marking faces is spawned.

Who owns the Arctic?

In the 1850's a British expedition to find the Northwest Passage through the Arctic Ocean goes missing for over a hundred years. Fast forward one hundred and fifty years. Due to global warming the ice pack has melted and it is now possible to sail year round through the Arctic Ocean.

Oil is discovered outside the new economic exclusion zone and Canada protests the invasion of oil drilling wells from the US, taking the case to the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. Canada claims sovereignty of the Artic to the North Pole. The US says, 'See you in court. No one can own an international waterway. '

Who owns the Pacific Ocean?

In a mirror image incident in the Pacific Ocean in international waters off China, barges filled with earth drop millions of tons of rocks and slurry to create a small land mass. The Chinese fill enough of the ocean to create a tiny island in the Pacific large enough to plant their flag. They then declare an economic exclusion zone of two hundred miles in all directions and begin drilling for oil.

The American navy sails through the disputed waters. Certain of the rightness of their cause, China begins sending belllegent diplomatic notes of protest to the United States and the United Nations. The US does not recognize their sovereignty in an international waterway by the artificial creation of a land mass. The Chinese are ready to start a war and take pot shots at the US navy in what used to be international waters. Tensions come to a boil before the case can be heard in international courts. The Chinese threaten to begin a war with the US over the issue.

The US responds by entering trade agreements with India and setting up manufacturing facilities for a wide range of consumer items, directly competing with cheap Chinese labor. Twenty years after the shift to India, the US and its allies block all further Chinese imports.

Who owns the sky?

Fred and Harriet are having dinner in their isolated country home. They're having Fred's favorite recipe – Mulligatawny soup. An object crashes through the roof and kills the couple outright. Upon investigation, the object belongs to Grooble, a technology firm developing driverless cars. One of their satellites, while repositioning itself to a new orbit, received an incorrect set of coordinates from the controller and crashed back to earth, landing on hapless Fred and Harriet, and the soup tureen. The pieces of wreckage found clearly indicate the ownership of the fallen satellite. Fred and Harriet's heirs file suit.

The ownership of a piece of land includes the space above and below it, with no defined limit. If you wish to build above the land five hundred stories high there can be no legal objection to it. The plaintiffs argument that their property rights are infringed at any altitude and Grooble was encroaching on the couple's right to ownership of their property, even though the satellite might have been hovering six thousand miles above them. Since the satellite owners accept the promise that the hardware may malfunction for any number of reasons and come crashing back to earth, they knowly encroached on property they do not own.

The Grooble Corporation argues that international agreements have determined space (defined as 62.5 miles altitude) to be outside the purview of local property laws. The heirs of the property owners claim that once the satellite re-entered the atmosphere, it was no longer subject to the laws that govern space and are there seeking damages afforded them by local property rights, the same as they would if an airplane dropped on their house.

Looking back we find it hard to believe some of the cases that were heard to defend people's rights and property. The Scopes trial of the Twenties comes to mind, which defended an educator's right to discuss evolution. A divisive question for its time, a mere ninety years later, it's almost irrelevant, replaced by the new issues that arise with the advent of technological discovery. The conflicts these new challenges create will burn brightly in their time, setting one against the other in tumult and violent upheaval until, just like all issues, the unveiling of new eras and new civilizations will make them pass into irrelevance. But is mankind now changing too quickly to adapt to new situations? For instance, will we pollute and kill all marine life in the oceans before we can develop legal frameworks to stop it? Will a country poison the atmosphere for the rest of the world? Will nations figure out a solution to global warming before it's too late? Will DNA continue to be copymitted preventing food from being grown by private citizens in times of starvation? Will space be cluttered with so much debris as to make it unusable? Legal disputes of the future are extremely difficult to predict but their outcomes greatly impact our societies.