A tool isn’t a person — yet

Op-EdArtificial intelligence isn't a person yet, but it's working on it.When does a tool become a person? (Smart-aleck follow-up: When is a person a tool?)I feel like I’ve blabbed about artificial intelligence a bit too much, but since we’re heading toward The Singularity we might as well keep up on the decline of humanity.But I digress. I just want to note a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling on whether an AI-enabled browser should be allowed to help people shop on Amazon.You would think Amazon would be happy to have informed shoppers getting what they want. Amazon was not happy. They sued a company called Perplexity AI, Inc. for offering a browser called Comet that includes an optional AI “agent” — aka the Assistant — that can browse websites to look for stuff.I’m not a computer expert — I just play one in this column — but my guess is that Amazon wants to maintain control over the choices consumers see first. So Amazon claimed Perplexity violated federal law by accessing its servers.The court didn’t buy the access argument, but here’s the line to think about from the court’s ruling: “However advanced the Assistant currently is, it is a tool, not a person for statutory purposes.”So does that mean Amazon can instead sue its own customers who use the Assistant? That doesn’t seem like a good merchandising idea.Does the tool become a person when it can shop for stuff it thinks people should have but haven’t asked for? Is it then a person just like a corporation and can it talk like money?I love weird legal logic.More from the court: “The legal understanding of agentic AI will doubtless change as AI technology grows increasingly sophisticated.”Oh boy. Something to look forward to.Chewy litigation. We have an update on a story we first reported in 2018: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that Jack Daniel’s whiskey’s reputation has not been ruined by a dog toy.No matter how you feel about trademark law, you’ve got to love the opening sentences of the court’s ruling:“A man walks into a bar. Spying a distinct whiskey bottle, he designs a squeaky dog toy to parody it.”As one normally does.I’m guessing this man may have had a drink or two first. I’m also guessing he’s had a few more during eight years of trademark litigation that included a trip to the Supreme Court.The toy, by the way, is called Bad Spaniels and is described as “Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” “43% POO BY VOL.” and “100% SMELLY.”Now picture the drunken consumers who could have thought Jack Daniels created this monstrosity.(Quick aside — this partial sentence from the ruling: “Noting that ‘there has been a great deal of research specifically on’ the feeling of disgust created by ‘defecation, feces, [and] poop …’”A great deal of research?!?I’m assuming more drinking.)The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion: “There is no evidence in the record from which a court could reasonably infer that scatological references made on a dog toy have the same likelihood of generating disgust as identical references on a consumable product meant for humans might.”I’m so glad we’ve got this cleared up.Categories / Op-Ed, TechnologySubscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads