Delete All IP? Dorsey and Musk Should Retract Their Destructive Statements

“American inventors and our innovations run the world. The engine of our patent system requires refurbishment and fine tuning, not a bid to relegate it to the junk yard.”

Jack Dorsey, a tech billionaire, grew exasperated this past weekend by various lawsuits regarding his OpenAI program. It seems that various content owners, such as the New York Times and the Daily News, were upset that their countless articles and writings were scoured by Dorsey’s OpenAI to train Dorsey’s OpenAI, without consent. Since this could constitute copyright theft, lawsuits ensued. Thus, let’s “delete all IP law,” Dorsey posted on X, to which Elon Musk, himself involved in numerous IP suits, and famously not a fan of patents, added, “I agree.”

Delete IP

Now, I am not a superstitious sort, but when billionaire tech titans proclaim from on high, we mortals are often wounded. Indeed, pending legislation could be affected and laws could be changed to further undermine the existing IP laws we have. Tech has already curtailed some of the more powerful aspects of patent law, e.g., the injunction right.

IP Also Had a Foe in Ford

But this is not the first time a prominent entrepreneur has threatened IP. Henry Ford had great animus toward the American patent system. Allegedly, his fame was so great that he considered a run for President in 1924, and on his platform of goals was the abolition of the United States Patent System. Ford was upset because decades earlier he and other nascent car manufacturers were forced into a licensing arrangement for the “horseless carriage.” Ford vehemently fought this arrangement and invalidated the patents standing in his way. Henry Ford is now revered for his innovative acumen and obtained many patents himself.

Like Ford, Dorsey—and apparently Musk—do not want mortals meddling in their affairs. Ford wanted to make his cars without any encumbrances of paying someone a royalty on IP. Henry Ford wanted to do what Henry Ford wanted to do. Dorsey and Musk also want to do what they want to do – without encumbrances preferably. Unfortunately, now there is some popular support for the notion that IP laws are bad or antiquated for the times. Hopefully, this unwise position will not live long or prosper.

Courts Have Let Flagrant Offenders Run Free

Did the OpenAI program have to feast on the data in millions of articles of the New York Times? No. But it apparently did, and without the proper written authorizations of the content owners. Like a property trespass, this was an unwanted and unwarranted intrusion, a taking. But will there be a punishment?

There are, for example, other instances of this type of taking where the takers go unpunished. Google is a flagrant offender of IP rights, doing evil in this regard. In the Google books project, they copied millions of copyrighted books without any authorization, yet this was in the end excused as being transformative, a now mostly disallowed doctrine. More recently, Google took substantial portions of Oracle’s copyrighted interface code to enable their own Android phone. In a shameful decision, the Supreme Court bent the law on copyright to permit this taking.

The tech billionaires operate on another level. Like Ford and Google—but hopefully not Dorsey and Musk—IP impediments can be avoided simply by taking the IP without any permission. Sadly, our Supreme Court tends to agree of late.

The IP System Needs Help, Not the ‘Old Heave-Ho’

I doubt Dorsey will get his wish to make IP go away anytime soon. The New York Times and their lawyers have apparently good arguments for copyright violation, so these cases will vex Dorsey for some time.

Elon Musk, with his incredible ingenuity in many diverse areas, must be swimming in patent litigation, hence his frustration. Unfortunately for Musk, his cutting-edge innovations take time to get through the patent review process, by which time he is on to version 5.0. But demolition of the patent system is not the answer Elon.

As I have stated many times, the American patent system should be stronger, but the rights of patent holders and many copyright holders have been eroded over the last two decades by the inaction and even corruption of a Congress, influenced heavily by the tech industry, by a daft Supreme Court that continues to undermine patenting current technologies, and presidents that mouth the words “intellectual Property” but do nothing more to protect it at home. American inventors and our innovations run the world. The engine of our patent system requires refurbishment and fine tuning, not a bid to relegate it to the junk yard.

Dorsey and Musk should retract their errant statements before more damage is done.

Raymond Van Dyke Raymond Van Dyke is an Attorney and Educator. In his practice at Van Dyke IP Law, he helps a variety of clients in their IP matters. He specializes in patent, [...see more]

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

12 comments so far.

Anon
April 23, 2025 12:57 am
Creating the databases upon which AI are trained usually requires copying of something from somewhere into the database by a machine without license or some other authorization.
The copies in the database can arguably be the copyright infringement instead of the act of training the AI model. This is what the courts need to sort out.

If I remember correctly, in the past when microprocessors were making copies of some code or data into memory that could be the act of copyright infringement.
Anon
April 21, 2025 03:43 pm
Not so Ray – the Four Factors (in viewing the actual technical transformation that occurs in the act if training) are most definitely – and quite easily taken as siding in Fair Use.

I would posit that the case most on point is the Google API case where the copying was far more direct and for a directly competitive purpose, and yet Fair Use was found.

From the technical and the legal angles, use for training is Fair Use.
Ben Appelbaum
April 21, 2025 01:58 pm
If Musk thinks we should delete all IP laws, etc, let’s start with him. Let him delete his own IP–Dedicate ALL his companies’ patents to the public, cancel ALL trademarks, dedicate all copyrights, dismiss all litigation WITH PREJUDICE, cancel ALL licenses, and the like, both in the US and internationally. Considering how DOGE can destroy an agency in a few hours, this shouldn’t take him more than a few minutes!! But remember–COPYRIGHT and PATENTS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! I’m not holding my breath.
Raymond Van Dyke
April 18, 2025 06:17 am
Anon: You broadly assert fair use to excuse this taking. Your argument reminds me of Japanese beer makers visiting U.S beer makers for a tour of the brewing facilities, back in the Seventies or Eighties I believe. Unbeknownst the U.S. companies, the Japanese executives visiting had special napkins or cloths with them. As the party walked around, they surreptitiously wiped handrails and other surfaces, gathering errant microorganisms used in their trade secret processes. To you, it seems, this is totally ok. Switching back to copyright, being secretive of your intent, acting without authorization, using third parties to obtain what you want, and so forth, are acceptable. As I point out, the Supreme Court may excuse this behavior in the end, but I hardly think that this can be considered a fair use – the 4 factors appear to tilt heavily against this notion.
Anon
April 17, 2025 11:00 am
RogerRoger,

Your misunderstanding of what training is – and what happens in the build of an AI engine – severely undermines the position that you would like to hold.

This from a purely objective and technical viewpoint.

From a legal viewpoint, you do not seem to understand what Fair Use actually is.

Raymond – there are limits to the bundle of rights of a granted US copyright. Use that is Fair Use is simply use outside of that bundle of rights. There is NO taking for a use (training that NECESSARILY involves technical transformation) that is Fair Use. Period. Thus, there is no running roughshod. As for the linked article – I do not put ANY legal credence in the shotgun approach by the leaders of Big Tech. They will turn over EVERY rock and try EVERY tactic to protect their business, so viewing their positions as anything remotely on point from a legal point of view is not worth the salt.

MaxDrei – your logic – as usual – is beyond banal. If for the reason alone of promoting health, your field enjoys LESS – not more – presumptive need of patent protection. The ‘need’ for what you denigrate in ‘business methods’ shows MORE – not less – benefit from patent protection as there is LESS – not more – other drivers to ‘get better.’ IU have also studies Dyson and his company and the view on patents, and you could not be more in error there as well. As usual, pretty much anything you have to offer is wrong. Still.
Max Drei
April 16, 2025 05:23 pm
My field is medical devices. It would be hard to deny that in this field patents promote the progress of innovation, to the benefit of everybody whose quality of life is improved by ever-better-performing medical devices.

Conversely, innovation in fields of business, on the border of what is or is not “technology”, will continue unabated, with or without patents. No wonder then, that the question what is non-patentably “abstract” is such a hotly-contested area.

But yes, it is as the writer urges, once you get to dominate an industry sector (other than chem/bio), IP rights suddenly seem so tedious and such a drag on the business of making even more money. No wonder Dorsey wants to be rid of all of them.

James Dyson, inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, was at the outset outspokenly against patents. After some years, he got big enough to take on the market leaders and got to be the richest man in England. Suddenly, then, he was all in favour of patent rights.
Raymond Van Dyke
April 16, 2025 03:09 pm
Re IPNerd, Eric Schmidt, once CEO of Google, was on 60 Minutes (twice) saying that true innovation does not come from corporations. It is the grad students or crazy persons out there that move the world.
IP Nerd
April 16, 2025 12:59 pm
I concur.

My next bit of content might be controversial but in honoring the constitution and creating royalties for inventors. I propose a date in the future where corporations cannot own Patents without a license from the actual inventor.

Employed inventors would get more leverage and might offer extremely fair licenses to get access to infrastructure to build current and future IP connected to the patent they are assigning.

This could create a boom in inventor entrepreneurs and help inventors gain employment. The independent inventor might even become relevant to the conversation again. I leave you with my final thought via quote.

“Corporations can not innovate, they can only own innovation”

Less corporate personhood and more human capital rights. Please and thank you.
Raymond Van Dyke
April 16, 2025 04:55 am
Josh: read Eilleen’s linked article for the details on the “taking” by OpenAI. Induced or contributory copyright infringement is still infringement. Others on your behalf, under false pretenses, foraging through copyrighted content, is not ok. Running roughshod over patents is not ok, as you would whole-heartedly agree, and neither is running roughshod over copyrights. Our creators and their creations must be better protected.
Pro Say
April 15, 2025 08:31 pm
Here’s a novel idea: Don’t steal the innovations — especially the patented innovations — of others.

Instead, innovate around what others have created . . . that; or simply take a reasonable license.

Quick. Easy. Fair.
RogerRoger
April 15, 2025 06:38 pm
The memorizing it is key here Josh. Memorization for these types of models necessarily requires a copying of that protected work. And without a specific exception like fair use the commercial use of that copy is infringement.
Josh Malone
April 15, 2025 04:18 pm
I’m not clear on how training a machine on copyrighted material violates rights of the author. If it was put in the public domain anyone can read it, memorize it, and apply it. That’s the whole point. If the content was accessed via subscription, then violating the terms is a tort, not a copyright violation.