{"id":9504,"date":"2026-08-05T11:36:58","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T07:36:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/?p=9504"},"modified":"2026-08-07T20:14:38","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T16:14:38","slug":"the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179<\/a>, aimed at removing compliance bottlenecks, to the sweeping legislative proposals in the March 2026 National Policy Framework, the administration\u2019s strategy rests on one premise: remove the barriers, win the race. This ethos was cemented further with the freshly issued June 2026 directive, Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security<\/a>, which doubles down on supercharging regional compute infrastructure and aggressively preempting state-level regulatory patchworks. It is a coherent, strongly pro-market strategy. Yet, it immediately collides with a profound structural blind spot that Washington has failed to confront: the most formidable barrier to capturing commercial value in the creative AI frontier isn\u2019t regulatory. It is the absolute absence of property rights for AI-generated output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Thaler Ghost in the Machine<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The stark reality of this legal black hole became permanent on March 2, 2026. The Supreme Court quietly denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 25-449<\/a>, letting stand the D.C. Circuit\u2019s landmark March 2025 ruling that works generated autonomously by an AI system, completely lacking direct human authorial input, are categorically ineligible for copyright protection under current federal law. Though delivered as a single line on an orders list, the denial sent shockwaves through every vector of American technology policy. It arrived precisely as the White House finished dismantling its predecessor’s regulatory framework (Executive Order 14110<\/a>), betting everything on a \u201clet alone\u201d approach to asset development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here we briefly review the facts of the case. Computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler developed an artificial intelligence system known as the Creativity Machine, which independently produced an artwork titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise<\/em>. Thaler applied for copyright registration with the United States Copyright Office, identifying the Creativity Machine as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner. The Copyright Office rejected the application because its policy requires a copyrighted work to have a human author. Thaler challenged the decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court upheld the Copyright Office\u2019s refusal, concluding that human authorship is a basic requirement of the Copyright Act of 1976. The court also dismissed Thaler\u2019s argument that he was entitled to the copyright under the work-made-for-hire doctrine, reasoning that the artwork was not copyrightable in the first place. In addition, the court determined that Thaler had waived his claim that he should be recognized as the author because he created and operated the Creativity Machine. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later reviewed the case and affirmed the district court\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Copyright Office originally blocked Dr. Stephen Thaler\u2019s application for an AI-generated artwork by invoking its strict ‘human authorship requirement.’ While deeply codified inside the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (3d ed.)<\/a>, this requirement is notably absent from the actual text of the Copyright Act of 1976<\/a>. Section 102(a) simply provides that copyright protection subsists in ‘original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression’\u2014nowhere explicitly specifying that the author must possess a biological pulse. Instead, the Office relies on nineteenth-century Supreme Court dicta like Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)<\/a>, which defined copyright around ‘the creative powers of the mind.’1<\/a><\/sup> Ironically, Burrow-Giles was written a century before modern algorithmic neural networks, in a historical dispute over whether the then-novel technology of photography could be protected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corporate Authors vs. Algorithmic Agents<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Copyright Office’s position, it sidestepped a glaring statutory contradiction exposed by Thaler\u2019s legal team: the ‘work-for-hire’ doctrine under Section 101 of the Act. For more than a century, corporations which lack consciousness, biological minds, or creative capacities in any literal sense, have legally acted as ‘authors’ and held copyrights without controversy.2<\/a><\/sup> If an artificial legal construct like a corporation can own and be credited as the author of an intellectual work, the strict exclusion of an artificial intelligence engine is a policy preference smuggled into the statute, rather than a clear textual command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thaler’s second defense\u2014the common-law property doctrine of accession\u2014received even less judicial appetite. Accession dictates an elegant, historic rule: the owner of a productive instrument owns its fruits. The owner of a cow owns the calf; the owner of a timberland owns the lumber; the owner of a printing press owns the printed pages.3<\/a><\/sup> As the designer, owner, and sole operator of the DABUS AI, Thaler argued he stood in an identical relationship to its artistic outputs. The courts dismissed this framework, segregating property law from copyright. Yet copyright is fundamentally a property right, and where a statute is silent, common-law gap-filling principles routinely apply. Because the Supreme Court declined review, this compelling legal theory is left waiting for a better vehicle in another circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crucially, the fight is far from over. Under the Supreme Court’s monumental ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)<\/a>, federal courts no longer hand down blank-check Chevron deference to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute within its jurisdiction. The Copyright Office’s human-authorship requirement is precisely the type of extra-statutory interpretive gloss that Loper Bright was designed to subject to independent judicial scrutiny.4<\/a><\/sup> Future litigants in tech-heavy forums (as the Second or Ninth Circuits) are entirely free to argue that, under de novo judicial review, the Office\u2019s categorical ban on AI registration is an overreach unsupported by the plain text of the Copyright Act. The Thaler cert denial didn’t kill this argument; it merely deferred it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Incoherence of ‘Input-Only’ Leadership<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This brings us back to the structural flaw in the Trump Administration\u2019s current policy framework, including its latest June 2026 action item. The economic engine of copyright relies on a simple, constitutionally mandated trade-off: grant a temporary monopoly over an output to incentivize investment in its creation. Intellectual property was never intended to exist as an abstract right; rather, it serves as a means to satisfy such collective interests as the enhancement and circulation of innovation and culture (‘science and the useful arts’, in the words of Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution), and, as concerns trademarks, the preservation of market transparency.5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The administration assumes that deregulating the input side will automatically unleash a wave of commercial prosperity. But if the ultimate outputs of these multi-billion-dollar models cannot be legally owned, protected, or commercialized, the economic incentive to deploy them collapses. A company pouring capital into generative models to design proprietary software, cinematic content, or industrial layouts has no legal shield against a competitor copying and pasting their final product for free. The deregulatory gains pursued on the input side are neutralized by the property vacuum on the output side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paradox deepens when considering the White House’s overt stance that training AI models on copyrighted human works constitutes ‘fair use’ that shouldn’t require licensing fees. If this view wins out judicially, the entire creative economy faces an absurd asymmetry: tech developers can take human-created data for free to build their models, but they cannot legally protect or own the proprietary outputs those very models generate. A national strategy aimed at global AI dominance that lacks a coherent legal theory on who owns the final product isn’t a blueprint for innovation. It is an economic mirage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n

  1. See Nimmer on Copyright \u00a7 1.06 (2025), discussing the historical evolution of the ‘original work of authorship’ definition and its initial extension to mechanical technologies like the camera container. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  2. See Goldstein on Copyright \u00a7 4.3 (3d ed. 2024), analyzing the statutory fiction of corporate authorship under the work-made-for-hire provisions of the 1976 Act. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  3. See Richard A. Epstein, Principles of Property Law, p. 142 (2019), detailing the doctrine of accession and the structural ownership of derivative outputs from productive capitals. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  4. See Administrative Law after Loper Bright: Judicial Review of Agency Interpretations, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 138, No. 2 (2024), evaluating the collapse of Chevron and its immediate ramifications for independent regulatory bureaus. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  5. Intellectual Property and General Legal Principles: Is IP a Lex Specialis?, Edited by Graeme B. Dinwoodie (Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, University of Oxford, UK), Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, p. 91. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed at…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9507,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":"[{\"content\":\"See Nimmer on Copyright \u00a7 1.06 (2025), discussing the historical evolution of the 'original work of authorship' definition and its initial extension to mechanical technologies like the camera container.\",\"id\":\"3e7fed53-4186-430c-8dfd-3173129d52a4\"},{\"content\":\"See Goldstein on Copyright \u00a7 4.3 (3d ed. 2024), analyzing the statutory fiction of corporate authorship under the work-made-for-hire provisions of the 1976 Act.\",\"id\":\"86ea5281-a4a1-45f8-b2ef-22195b1e84ca\"},{\"content\":\"See Richard A. Epstein, Principles of Property Law, p. 142 (2019), detailing the doctrine of accession and the structural ownership of derivative outputs from productive capitals.\",\"id\":\"317d80e7-3cae-4c85-8a9d-716e6b5e7d2a\"},{\"content\":\"See Administrative Law after Loper Bright: Judicial Review of Agency Interpretations, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 138, No. 2 (2024), evaluating the collapse of Chevron and its immediate ramifications for independent regulatory bureaus.\",\"id\":\"b71abad6-9a97-4ada-b24d-490cb70aec12\"},{\"content\":\"Intellectual Property and General Legal Principles: Is IP a Lex Specialis?, Edited by Graeme B. Dinwoodie (Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, University of Oxford, UK), Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, p. 91.\",\"id\":\"2f7121de-cc64-4060-9d49-8d982b6ebac8\"}]"},"categories":[1599,1598],"tags":[],"coauthors":[35],"class_list":["post-9504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ip-law","category-law-and-technology"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy | Briefly: The Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy | Briefly: The Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Briefly: The Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lawblog.az\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-05T07:36:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-07T16:14:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026-1024x683.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nurlan Mammadli\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nurlan Mammadli\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nurlan Mammadli\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/1c304560bd4edd45247d2183fb52af8f\"},\"headline\":\"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-05T07:36:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-07T16:14:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\"},\"wordCount\":1225,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"IP Law\",\"Law and technology\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\",\"name\":\"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy | Briefly: The Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-05T07:36:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-07T16:14:38+00:00\",\"description\":\"The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png\",\"width\":1536,\"height\":1024},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Ana S\u0259hif\u0259\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Briefly: The Law Blog\",\"description\":\"Az\u0259rbaycanca h\u00fcquq bloqu\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Briefly: The Law Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/CoreLogo-LawBlog5.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/CoreLogo-LawBlog5.png\",\"width\":\"481\",\"height\":\"486\",\"caption\":\"Briefly: The Law Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lawblog.az\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/briefly-the-law\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/1c304560bd4edd45247d2183fb52af8f\",\"name\":\"Nurlan Mammadli\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/24844c52bb8938ac7f46a9cd9d67c09e\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5cb77c3e0884dfe8e5681da58da6e2da97f223603b823b39f5717b53c072e1e9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5cb77c3e0884dfe8e5681da58da6e2da97f223603b823b39f5717b53c072e1e9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nurlan Mammadli\"},\"description\":\"\\\"Nurlan (LLB, 2019) is currently pursuing an MBA in Cybersecurity and working as an Investigations Officer. He previously served as Editor-in-Chief of the fourth volume of the Baku State University Law Review.\\\"\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/author\/nurlan-mammadli\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy | Briefly: The Law Blog","description":"The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy | Briefly: The Law Blog","og_description":"The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed","og_url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/","og_site_name":"Briefly: The Law Blog","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lawblog.az","article_published_time":"2026-08-05T07:36:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-07T16:14:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026-1024x683.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Nurlan Mammadli","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nurlan Mammadli","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/"},"author":{"name":"Nurlan Mammadli","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/1c304560bd4edd45247d2183fb52af8f"},"headline":"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy","datePublished":"2026-08-05T07:36:58+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-07T16:14:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/"},"wordCount":1225,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png","articleSection":["IP Law","Law and technology"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/","url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/","name":"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy | Briefly: The Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png","datePublished":"2026-08-05T07:36:58+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-07T16:14:38+00:00","description":"The White House has set out a clear vision for technology: absolute American hegemony. From the early signature directives of Executive Order 14179, aimed","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Image-Aug-5-2026.png","width":1536,"height":1024},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/2026\/08\/05\/the-intellectual-property-vacuum-at-the-heart-of-washingtons-ai-dominance-strategy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Ana S\u0259hif\u0259","item":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Intellectual Property Vacuum at the Heart of Washington\u2019s AI Dominance Strategy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/","name":"Briefly: The Law Blog","description":"Az\u0259rbaycanca h\u00fcquq bloqu","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#organization","name":"Briefly: The Law Blog","url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/CoreLogo-LawBlog5.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/CoreLogo-LawBlog5.png","width":"481","height":"486","caption":"Briefly: The Law Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lawblog.az","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/briefly-the-law\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/1c304560bd4edd45247d2183fb52af8f","name":"Nurlan Mammadli","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/24844c52bb8938ac7f46a9cd9d67c09e","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5cb77c3e0884dfe8e5681da58da6e2da97f223603b823b39f5717b53c072e1e9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5cb77c3e0884dfe8e5681da58da6e2da97f223603b823b39f5717b53c072e1e9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nurlan Mammadli"},"description":"\"Nurlan (LLB, 2019) is currently pursuing an MBA in Cybersecurity and working as an Investigations Officer. He previously served as Editor-in-Chief of the fourth volume of the Baku State University Law Review.\"","url":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/blog\/author\/nurlan-mammadli\/"}]}},"menu_order":0,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9504"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9504\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9511,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9504\/revisions\/9511"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9507"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9504"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblog.az\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=9504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}