1. In a few words, can you tell us about yourself and how you found your way to the academic world?
I am a civil servant – I worked as a legal advisor in the intellectual property law department at the legislation and legal counsel division in the Israeli Ministry of Justice from 2010 until 2017. Since 2017 I have worked as a legal advisor to the Economy Committee in the Israeli Parliament, and I am currently on temporary leave due to relocation. I have always believed in maintaining a lively dialogue between the public sector and academia, as well as the private sector and the general public. I believe that this dialogue is extremely important, as it leads to better policy-making and improves public trust in government. The variety of opinions found in academia is often eye-opening, and debates in academic forums are a great place to gain ideas and inspiration that can later be used in actual policy-making and legislation. Therefore, throughout my work in the public sector, I have always maintained strong connections with academia – as a teaching assistant, as a guest lecturer at academic courses, and as an invited speaker at academic conferences. So I actually feel like I never really left the academic world since my LL.B studies. My leave of absence is the perfect opportunity for me to invest all of my time in academic work and research.
2. What is the main core of your research? Can you give an example or two?
My research focuses on intellectual property rights in a global, increasingly technological world. I research the effect of cyberspace and new technologies on existing legal IP frameworks and vice versa. I ask how current frameworks can accommodate technological developments, if they need to be adjusted to further incentivize the creation of such developments, and how they can maximize the use of developments for the public good. One of my main research areas is the intersection between intellectual property and private international law. I ask, for example, should one state be obligated to enforce IP judgments originating in another state? This is a difficult question as IP rights are territorial and can vary between states, so an act may constitute an IP infringement in one state, and yet be completely lawful in the other. In this case, enforcing foreign judgments may prevent IP users from making a use that is permitted in their own state. On the other hand, considering the ubiquity of cyberspace, sometimes states cannot singlehandedly prevent infringements of IP in their territories, so international cooperation may be essential.
3. Why choose this area over all others? Did your personal or professional background lead you to it?
Why did I choose IP over all other legal areas? Well, it was love at first sight, at least on my part, ever since the first course I took on IP at the university back in 2008. Why IP and cyberspace? Simply because they are so well entwined that you cannot discuss one without the other. IP is an area of development; one of its main purposes is to incentivize innovation and creativity. Technological development is therefore only natural in the IP field. Still, even in this field, and somewhat unintuitively, we can often detect struggles to part with old legal and business models and difficulties to "roll" with technology. I believe that legislation and legal frameworks should facilitate these developments as best they can – this is what they are here for, and there is no IP without development.
During my work in the public sector, I often encountered legal questions stemming from technological developments. For example, one of the main projects I worked on in the Ministry of Justice was a new Designs Act, that was finally enacted in 2017. The previous legislation on the matter was an ordinance from 1924(!). Clearly, between 1924 and 2017, immense technological developments occurred. Therefore, technological developments in the field and their effect on design rights were a big part of my research for drafting the new Act, and made me even more interested in the intersection between IP and cyberspace.
4. Do you think that in this cyber age these issues are even more complex compared to other times in history? If so – in what ways?
I believe that technological changes should not affect the essence of our IP legal frameworks and rights. Having said that, sometimes technology makes us ask ourselves profound questions about the very roots of our existing IP regime. For example, the world currently debates whether AI-created works, inventions or designs can gain IP protection. One of the main questions here is whether AI can be considered to be an "author" of a work, an "inventor" of an invention or a "designer" of a design. On the surface, the question is whether a non-human entity can "author", "invent" or "design". But I think that the actual question here goes down to the very core of IP justifications. For example, should the incentives that the IP regime is built to provide apply to AI? Do we want the IP regime to incentivize only human creation? Or do we want it to incentivize any innovation, no matter its source? Should the incentives provided to AI and its operators be the same as for a flesh-and-blood author, inventor or designer?
5. What is the next phase in your professional life?
Being on a leave of absence from my work in the public sector, I am very excited to invest all of my time in IP research. The ever-changing technologies lead to innumerous fascinating questions and subjects to think about, discuss, and research, and I am looking forward to doing just this.
6. What is your message to the public?
Technology and cyberspace should be treated cautiously, but they should not be feared. When it comes to IP, technology and cyberspace grant us countless exciting opportunities. Seize them!
