Author: TSA Press

At
recent
trade
shows,
AI
panels
have
been
the
most
highly
attended
events
—
and
there’s
a
good
reason
why.   

While
just
about
every
lawyer
is
thinking
about
incorporating
artificial
intelligence
into
their
work,
many
are
struggling
to
get
started
on
turning
the
theoretical
into
the
practical.

Here,
we’re
sharing
specific
ways
AI
can
streamline
your
firm’s
business
operations,
based
on
insights
from
legal
tech
experts

Josh
Carter,

Jared
Correia,

Niki
Black,
and

Nancy
Myrland. 

Legal
Research

There
is
no
one
right
way
to
use
generative
AI
for
legal
research,
but
there
are
many
wrong
ways. 

“I
always
say
that
it’s
like
a
really
fantastic
assistant
that
truly
wants
to
help
you,”
Niki

said
in
a
recent
webinar,
“that
sits
on
your
shoulder
but
also
has
a
pathological
lying
problem.”

Lawyers
have
all
seen
the
headlines
about
case
hallucinations
—
and,
hopefully,
the
ethics
rules
around
confidentiality.
As
a
result,
legal-specific
tools,
which
can
minimize
these
types
of
risks,
are
recommended
for
legal
research. 

To
get
started,
lawyers
can
just
dive
into
a
tool’s
interface
and
simply
ask
questions. 

Prompts
don’t
have
to
be
perfect
because
AI
tools
can
iterate
to
get
to
your
ideal
answer.
In
fact,
Niki
noted,
holding
out
for
the
perfect
prompt
can
actually
be
a
roadblock
to
getting
started. 

“You’ll
also
find
yourself
asking
the
same
questions,
for
the
same
task,
over
and
over
again,
and
then
you’ll
realize
that
you’re
typing
the
same
thing
over
and
over
again,”
she
said.
“And
then
you’ll
have
organically
created
the
perfect
prompt
for
that
particular
task.”

AI
tools
will
save
the
prompt
history
of
their
subscribers,
allowing
experienced
users
to
have
their
most
effective
prompts
one
click
away.
This
setup
will
guide
them
to
their
answers
even
more
efficiently,
as
your
returns
on
investment
grow
with
your
experience. 

Getting
Clients

Marketer
Nancy
Myrland
has
developed

The
Relationship
Continuum™, 
a
framework
for
keeping
relationships
strong
through
every
stage
of
communication. 

It’s
organized
into
three
stages
—
the
written
word,
the
spoken
word,
and
the
visual
word
—
and
AI
tools
can
help
with
each. 

The
written
word
includes
things
like
blog
posts,
where
lawyers
can
showcase
their
expertise
without
selling.
Generative
AI
has
obvious
uses
here,
Nancy
notes,
like
refining
and
brainstorming
ideas. 
​​

AI
tools
can
also
help
you
generate
short
posts
for
social
media
and
other
venues
based
on
audio
podcasts
and
video
webinars,
advancing
the
spoken
word
and
visual
word
as
well. 

“AI
is
here
to
help
you
work
smarter,”
she
writes,
“and
not
to
be
an
absentee
content
creator
or
strategist
who
is
not
involved
in
the
process
of
communicating
with
your
clients
and
referral
sources.”

Non-Legal
Documents

Niki,
meanwhile,
sees
myriad
uses
for
generative
AI
throughout
a
law
firm. 

These
include:

• Drafting
  policies
  and
  procedures
• Creating
  training
  tasks
• Generating
  website
  content
• Translating
  into
  other
  languages
• Preparing
  for
  arbitration
• 
  See
  the
  others
  here

Curious
to
see
how
AI
can
position
your
firm
for
long-term
growth
and
competitiveness?

You
can
learn
more
from
8am
here. 

Why
In-House
Teams
Keep
Running
Into
The
Same
Friction
In-house
lawyers
are
swimming
in
best
practices.
Every
vendor
offers
them.
Every
consultant
references
them.
Every
policy
framework
promises
alignment
with
them.
Yet
in
the
daily
work
of
partnering
with
product,
engineering,
risk,
or
operations,
something
doesn’t
line
up.
The
guidance
that
looks
solid
on
paper
often
collapses
when
applied
to
real
decisions
inside
a
fast-moving
business.

Most
best
practices
were
designed
for
an
environment
that
moved
slowly.
They
assume
stable
processes,
predictable
systems,
quarterly
release
cycles,
and
long
planning
horizons.
That
world
is
gone.
Today’s
companies
ship
continuously.
They
integrate
AI
into
everything
from
customer
interactions
to
internal
workflows.
They
operate
in
regulatory
conditions
that
shift
every
few
months.
And
they
manage
risks
that
don’t
look
anything
like
the
static
models
we
learned
earlier
in
our
careers.

This
mismatch
creates
friction
that
no
one
talks
about
directly.
Legal
is
asked
to
uphold
standards
that
no
longer
map
to
how
the
business
works.
Product
teams
try
to
comply
with
guidance
that
feels
both
rigid
and
outdated.
Leaders
think
they
are
aligning
with
norms,
only
to
discover
those
norms
were
built
for
a
different
era.

How
‘Best
Practices’
Quietly
Become
Legacy
Practices
The
trouble
with
best
practices
is
that
once
they
earn
the
label,
organizations
treat
them
as
settled.
They
become
permanent
fixtures
in
policies,
playbooks,
and
approval
workflows.
They
stop
evolving.
And
the
more
static
they
become,
the
more
out
of
sync
they
get
with
what
the
company
actually
needs.

Even
strong
legal
teams
fall
into
this
trap.
They
rely
on
best
practices
because
they
feel
defensible.
They
simplify
decisions.
They
reduce
the
burden
of
reinventing
guidance
when
the
environment
changes.
But
over
time,
these
practices
harden
into
a
kind
of
institutional
muscle
memory.
Everyone
follows
them
because
they
exist,
not
because
they
still
make
sense.

The
result
shows
up
in
subtle
ways.
A
template
that
once
protected
the
company
now
slows
teams
down.
A
policy
that
once
clarified
accountability
now
hides
it.
A
process
built
for
a
lower-risk
era
now
introduces
new
risk
because
it
blinds
the
organization
to
emerging
signals.

No
one
intends
this
to
happen.
It
happens
because
static
guidance
rarely
survives
a
dynamic
system.

Why
Next
Practices
Offer
A
More
Realistic
Path
Forward
Next
practices
are
not
the
opposite
of
rigor.
They
are
a
recognition
that
rigor
only
works
when
it
reflects
reality.
Instead
of
treating
guidance
as
fixed,
next
practices
treat
it
as
living.
They
acknowledge
that
technology,
markets,
and
behaviors
shift
faster
than
policy
cycles.
They
aim
to
keep
legal
aligned
with
what
the
company
is
actually
facing,
not
what
it
used
to
face.

For
in-house
lawyers,
this
is
not
an
abstract
concept.
It
is
a
practical
one.

Next
practices
help
you
evaluate
whether
the
assumptions
under
your
current
frameworks
still
fit.
They
help
surface
where
your
templates,
intake
forms,
or
decision
paths
reflect
a
world
your
business
no
longer
operates
in.
And
they
help
you
spot
where
outdated
“good
standards”
are
creating
risk
instead
of
managing
it.

This
is
work
that
happens
quietly
in
the
background
of
every
modern
in-house
function.
It
is
the
work
that
keeps
legal
relevant.

Where
Legal
Teams
Feel
The
Gap
Most
Strongly
The
gap
between
best
practices
and
next
practices
is
easiest
to
see
in
places
where
the
environment
is
changing
fast.
AI
governance.
Adaptive
products.
Global
data
flows.
Rapid
sales
cycles.
Third-party
risk.
User
consent.
Automated
decision
systems.
The
topics
may
differ,
but
they
all
share
the
same
pattern.

The
guidance
that
worked
last
year
doesn’t
quite
fit
anymore.
The
underlying
assumptions
have
shifted.
And
the
more
tightly
teams
cling
to
“proven”
standards,
the
more
mismatched
the
work
becomes.

This
is
not
a
failure
of
the
team.
It
is
a
signal
that
the
environment
has
evolved.

In-house
lawyers
feel
this
mismatch
first
because
they
bridge
the
gap
between
business
ambition
and
operational
reality.
When
the
friction
grows,
it’s
usually
a
cue
that
the
team
is
relying
on
best
practices
that
no
longer
reflect
the
company’s
actual
needs.

Why
I
Created
A
Next
Practices
Resource
for
Legal
Leaders
I
authored
the
resource
“Next
Practice
Instead
of
Best
Practice”
because
I
kept
seeing
the
same
pattern
across
legal
teams
I
advise,
partner
with,
or
lead.
Smart,
thoughtful
lawyers
were
doing
everything
“right,”
yet
their
frameworks
did
not
hold
up
under
the
weight
of
modern
product
cycles
or
emerging
tech
shifts.
They
weren’t
doing
anything
wrong.
They
were
using
guidance
built
for
a
different
world.

The
resource
is
meant
to
help
in-house
lawyers
examine
where
their
current
materials
may
no
longer
reflect
reality
and
where
evolution
is
overdue.
It
is
not
about
throwing
out
structure.
It
is
about
making
sure
the
structure
still
maps
to
what
the
business
needs
today.
If
you
want
to
explore
it,
you
can
find
it
here.

Next
Practices
Are
Not
Optional
For
The
Modern
GC
Whether
you
support
product,
privacy,
operations,
risk,
or
corporate
strategy,
your
guidance
will
eventually
drift
out
of
alignment
if
it
stays
static.
The
pace
of
technology
guarantees
it.
The
only
question
is
whether
your
frameworks
evolve
with
the
business
or
lag
behind
it.

Next
practices
help
you
stay
in
sync.
They
help
you
recognize
when
to
update
assumptions,
when
to
revise
templates,
and
when
to
retire
norms
that
no
longer
serve
the
company.
They
help
legal
become
a
partner
in
navigating
change
rather
than
a
steward
of
outdated
advice.

And
they
strengthen
the
GC’s
voice
in
executive
conversations
where
the
company
needs
clarity,
not
historical
standards.

A
Quiet
but
Powerful
Shift
In
In-House
Practice
The
companies
that
navigate
emerging
technology
well
share
a
common
trait.
Their
legal
teams
stay
grounded
in
reality,
not
nostalgia.
They
align
their
guidance
with
what
they
are
actually
seeing,
not
with
what
was
once
predictable.
They
anchor
decisions
in
judgment,
not
old
frameworks.
They
build
guidance
that
moves
with
the
business.

This
shift
doesn’t
require
fanfare.
It
requires
awareness.

If
the
idea
of
next
practices
helps
you
revisit
where
your
guidance
may
have
gone
stale,
it
has
already
done
its
job.
In-house
leaders
do
not
need
more
rules.
They
need
frameworks
that
move
with
them.

Best
practices
were
built
for
the
world
we
had.
Next
practices
are
built
for
the
world
we
are
entering.

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty. A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics. She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.

Health
insurance
CEOs
faced
questions
on
healthcare
costs,
vertical
integration
and
prior
authorization
from
the

House
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee
and
the

House
Ways
and
Means
Committee
on
Thursday.

The
insurer
witnesses
included
Stephen
Hemsley,
CEO
of
UnitedHealth
Group;
David
Joyner,
president
and
CEO
of
CVS
Health;
Gail
Boudreaux,
president
and
CEO
of
Elevance
Health;
David
Cordani,
president,
CEO
and
chairman
of
the
board
of
The
Cigna
Group;
and
Paul
Markovich,
president
and
CEO
of
Ascendiun
(parent
of
Blue
Shield
of
California). 

Ellen
Allen,
executive
director
of
West
Virginians
for
Affordable
Healthcare,
also
testified
to
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee,
while
ReShonda
Young,
an
Iowa
resident
and
small
business
owner,
testified
to
the
Ways
and
Means
Committee.

Here
are
four
key
takeaways
from
the
hearings:

1.
Everyone
agrees
healthcare
affordability
is
a
problem:
Across
both
hearings,
lawmakers
emphasized
that
healthcare
has
become
too
expensive
and
that
Americans
are
struggling
with
rising
premiums,
deductibles
and
out-of-pocket
costs. 

For
example,
Rep.
Morgan
Griffith
(R-Virginia),
chairman
of
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee,
argued
that
a
“lack
of
competition
and
consolidation
within
the
insurance
marketplace
has
led
us
to
higher
healthcare
costs
as
a
whole.”
Ranking
Member
Rep.
Diana
DeGette
(D-Colorado)
stated
that
“Americans
know
that
healthcare
is
far
too
expensive,
as
it
takes
up
a
greater
percentage
of
our
economy
than
any
other
developed
country.”

The
health
insurance
CEOs
agreed
that
healthcare
costs
are
a
major
issue.

“Our
healthcare
system
is
bankrupting
and
failing
us,”
Markovich
said
in
his
opening
statement.
“It’s
way
too
expensive,
it’s
too
impersonal.
It
doesn’t
cover
everybody.
It
has
inferior
quality
scores
relative
to
other
countries,
and
it’s
mistrusted
by
far
too
many
Americans.
This
is
unacceptable.”

2.
Everyone
has
different
ideas
for
addressing
the
affordability
problem:
While
there
is
broad
agreement
that
healthcare
is
too
expensive,
consensus
quickly
falls
apart
on
how
to
fix
it.
Republicans
largely
blamed
a
lack
of
competition,
consolidation
and
the
structure
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act
for
healthcare
costs.
Democrats
pointed
to
the
need
to
extend
ACA
enhanced
premium
tax
credits,
which
expired
at
the
end
of
2025.

This
divide
was
exemplified
during
the
opening
statements
of
the
Ways
and
Means
Committee
hearing.
Chairman
Rep.
Jason
Smith
(R‑Missouri)
criticized
Democrats
for
failing
to
address
affordability
and
accused
them
of
protecting
insurance
corporations
and
enabling
market
consolidation.

“After
15
years
of
a
Democrat-created
health
system
under
Obamacare,
prices
have
only
gone
up,
not
down,”
he
said.
“They
have
only
gone
up.
I’d
also
like
to
remind
my
Democrat
colleagues
that
these
same
corporations
have
exploited
market
power
and
vulnerabilities
in
federal
programs
to
consolidate
control,
steer
patient
care
and
maximize
revenue.”

Ranking
Member
Rep.
Richard
Neal
(D‑Massachussetts)
turned
the
blame
back
on
Republicans
for
allowing
the
ACA
tax
credits
to
expire.

“Our
Republican
friends
have
no
interest
in
strengthening
healthcare
or
protecting
patients.
…
They’ve
refused
to
extend
the
tax
credits
that
we’ve
asked
for
time
and
again,
causing
millions
to
forgo
health
coverage
this
year,
and
they’ve
been
silent
as
the
Trump
administration
wages
an
all
out-war
on
public
health
and
yes,
on
science
as
well,”
Neal
said.

Insurers,
meanwhile,
largely
pointed
to
hospitals
and
pharma
for
rising
costs.

“The
cost
of
healthcare
insurance
fundamentally
reflects
the
cost
of
healthcare
itself,”
Hemsley
said.
“It
is
more
an
effect
than
a
cause.
If
insurance
costs
are
going
up
even
as
we
compete
aggressively
against
other
companies,
it
signals
rising
costs
of
health
services,
drugs
and
rising
volumes
of
care
activity.
And
it
is
a
fact,
hospital
and
drug
spending
has
soared
at
three
times
the
rate
of
inflation
since
before
2000.”

3.
Vertical
integration:
Insurers
faced
a
lot
of
questions
from
both
sides
of
the
aisle
about
their
vertical
integration
with
PBMs,
pharmacies
and
clinics.
During
the
Ways
and
Means
Committee
hearing,
Rep.
Greg
Murphy
(R-North
Carolina)
stated
that
vertical
integration
“has
destroyed
competition
in
this
country.”

“I
don’t
agree
with
Mark
Cuban
often,
but
we
do
agree
that
what
needs
to
happen
is
that
you
guys
need
to
be
broken
up.
…
If
I
had
my
way,
I’d
turn
all
of
you
guys
into
dust.
We’d
start
back
from
scratch.
We’d
have
competition,”
he
said.

Rep.
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez
(D-New
York)
focused
her
questioning
on
CVS
Health,
noting
that
the
company
owns
the
insurer
Aetna,
the
PBM
CVS
Caremark
and
medical
clinics
Oak
Street
Health.
She
asked
Joyner
if
he
would
agree
that
this
is
“quite
a
bit
of
market
concentration,”
to
which
he
responded
that
he
doesn’t
agree
and
that
it’s
a
“model
that
works
really
well
for
the
consumer.” 

4.
Prior
authorization
and
denials:
Insurers
were
also
grilled
about
their
prior
authorization
practices
and
denial
rates.
A
key
moment
came
during
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee
hearing,
in
which
Rep.
Buddy
Carter
(R-Georgia),
who
practiced
pharmacy,
asked
Hemsley
if
he
ever
looked
a
patient
in
the
eye
and
explained
why
UnitedHealthcare
denied
their
medication.

Hemsley
responded
that
he
has
looked
patients
in
the
eyes
many
times,
but
doesn’t
recall
whether
it’s
regarding
prior
authorization.

“I’m
the
one
who
had
to
look
the
patient
in
the
eye,”
Carter
countered.
“I’m
the
one
who
had
to
tell
them
that,
on
your
behalf,
it’s
not
fun.”
He
went
on
to
give
a
story
about
a
single
mother
in
Kentucky
who
was
diagnosed
with
cancer
and
is
being
denied
her
medication
by
UnitedHealthcare.

Photo:
Valerii
Evlakhov,
Getty
Images

*
Prime
suspect
in
massive
jewelry
heist
takes
advantage
of
ICE
and
gets
himself
deported…
to
escape
trial!
Get
ready
with
that
Ocean’s
11
sequel
script.
[The
Guardian]

*
Minnesota
District
Chief
Judge
delivers
blistering
response
after
Eighth
Circuit
allows
DOJ
to
file
end
run
mandamus
over
insufficient
arrest
warrant.
[One
First]

*
More
voices
calling
for
local
prosecutions
against
ICE
agents.
[NY
Times]

*
Should
California
create
its
own
bar
exam?
Despite
the
real
risk
that
the
state’s
professional
leaders
would

throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water
following
last
year’s
disastrous
experiment,
it
seems
the
majority
still
understand
it’s
the
right
path
forward.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Retired
NY
Supreme
Justice
Arthur
Engoron
reflects
on
his
career.
[New
York
Law
Journal]

*
Disgraced
former
administration
lawyer
Jenna
Ellis
criticizes
White
House
for
public
relations
screening
First
Lady’s
documentary
immediately
after
ICE
murdered
a
man
in
Minnesota.
[Daily
Beast]

*
Kyle
Cheney
of
Politico
collected
over
2300
cases
of
federal
judges
growing
increasingly
frustrated
at
the
lawlessness
from
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
[Twitter]

Some
Clients
Can
Cost
More
Than
They’re
Worth:

Biglaw
firm
named
in
$735
million
lawsuit
over
deal
with
troubled
client.

The
Lindsey
Halligan
Experiment
Ends:

Good
garage
band
name
though.

DOJ
Suggests
Deporting
The
Beatles:

Government
lawyers
continue
stress-testing
statutory
interpretation
to
see
how
much
nonsense
it
can
get
away
with.

Supreme
Court
Draws
The
Line
At
Their
Personal
Finances:

The
Unitary
Executive
is
all
fun
and
games
until
someone
loses
their
beach
house.

Ty
Cobb
Says
Former
Client
Trump
May
Have
Dementia:

Ya
think?

Biglaw
Feasts
As
Midsize
Firm
Collapses:

When
one
door
closes,
lateral
recruiters
open
a
window.

Biglaw
Defamation
Fight
Escalates
Into
Mutual
Assured
Litigation:

Long-running
Baker
McKenzie
battle
steps
up
a
notch.

Trump
Sues
JP
Morgan:

Complaint
reads
less
like
a
legal
filing
and
more
like
a
mob
movie
deleted
scene.

Federal
Judge
Accuses
Trump
Team
Of
Targeting
The
First
Amendment:

This
administration
is
losing
the
Reagan
judges.

DOJ
Drops
Hypo
About
Deporting
The
Beatles?:
Why?
To
fight
the
great
British
Invasion
that
is
Please
Please
Me,
I
guess.
Former
Associate
Countersues
Baker
McKenzie:
This
fight
won’t
be
calming
down
any
time
soon.
MemeLord-In-Chief
Flirts
With
3rd
Term
Via
Stardew
Valley:
Everyone
involved
should
have
touched
grass
instead.
Trump
Shakes
Down
JP
Morgan:
Whoa,
even
the
banks
aren’t
safe.
Drake
Revives
Not
Like
Us
Lawsuit
For
All
The
Dogs:
Will
be
a
shame
when
they
get
put
down
a
second
time.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

The
late
Barbara
Aronstein
Black
made
history
as
the
first
woman
to
lead
an
Ivy
League
law
school
as
the
dean
of
what
law
school?

Hint:
It
would
take
another
17
years
before
another
woman
—
Elena
Kagan
—
would
follow
in
those
footsteps.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

WASHINGTON
—
The
Pentagon
spends
$3.3
billion
a
year
on
its
216
laboratories,
which
have
piled
up
thousands
of
patents,
often
for
technologies
which
may
never
see
the
light
of
day,
let
alone
a
battlefield.
But
this
morning,
the
Department’s
CTO,
Under
Secretary
for
Research
&
Engineering

Emil
Michael,
publicly
launched
a
two-pronged
crusade
to
change
that.

“[It’s]
a
frustrating
point:
Why
do
these
innovations
—
and
we
have
thousands
of
them
in
the
labs,
billions
of
dollars
worth
of

IP
that’s
been
created
by
the
great
minds
in
the
labs
—
why
does
it
not
get
all
the
way
out
there
to
the
warfighter?”
Michael
asked
a
packed
conference
room
in
downtown

Washington,
DC.
“In
part,
it’s
because
you
don’t
know
where
to
go
to
find
them.
They’re
all
over
the
place.
They’re
not
categorized,
they’re
not
available.”

Hence
his
two-part
plan:

Step
one,
effective
immediately,
is
to
make
roughly
400
carefully
picked
patents

available
online
for
a
free
two-year
trial
period.
Specifically,
any
company
that
wants
to
try
out
one
of
the
400
technologies
in
its
own
research,
development,
and
products
can
get
what’s
called
a
Commercial
Evaluation
License
(CEL)
without
the
usual
fee.

Those
400

technologies
—
everything
from
a

Navy-developed
drone
tracking
system
to

novel
Army
mortar
fuses
—
were
chosen
out
of
the
thousands
of
possibilities
by
Michael’s
staff,
with
an
eye
to
his
recently
announced
top
six

Critical
Technology
Areas.
There
were
so
many
options
from
so
many
labs,
he
said,
that
they
had
to
use
AI
to
help
sort
through
them.

“Here
are
the
patents
we
think
are
important,
are
interesting,
have
merit,
that
you
can
develop
on
and
potentially
productize,”
Michael
said.
“We’re
going
to
give
you
a
two-year
patent
holiday,
royalty-free.”

If
the
project
goes
well
and
the
company
wants
to
keep
using
the
patent
beyond
the
two-year
free
trial,
well,
in
true
Trumpian
fashion,
Michael
says
he’s
ready
to
make
a
deal.

“See
what
you
could
do
with
them,
see
if
you
can
make
a
business
out
of
them,
and
then
come
back
to
us
…
and
let’s
figure
out
a
long
term-arrangement,”
he
told
the
executives
at
the
Pentagon-backed
conference,
hosted

by
consulting
firm

SMI.

It’s
not
as
if
the
Pentagon
is
giving
up
a
lot
of
revenue
by
sharing
this
intellectual
property
for
free,
he
said.
While
it
does
license
some
patents
to
industry
already,
Michael
told
the
executives,
“the
amount
of
money
that
we
make
from
patent
fees
today
is
infinitesimal
—
and
it’s
not
because
they’re
not
good
patents,
[it’s]
because
you
don’t
know
about
them,
and
we
haven’t
created
enough
of
a
way
for
you
to
get
to
them
and
develop
on
them.”

More
Data,
More
Problems

Step
two,
in
progress,
is
to
put
all
those
thousands
of
patents
from
all
216
labs
into
a
single
searchable
database
for
the
first
time,
using
a
longstanding
public-private
partnership
called

TechLink
and
an
interagency
database
called

iEdison.
(Explicitly
not
included:
classified
patents
for
technologies
who
very
existence
is
kept
secret.)

After
almost
two
years
of
work
behind
the
scenes,
things
are
now
moving
fast,
said

Bethany
Loftin,
director
of
the
Technology
Partnerships
Office
at
the
National
Institute
of
Standards
&
Technology
(NIST),
the
Commerce
Department
agency
that
runs
iEdison.
That
database
currently
holds
ideas
from
some
36
federal
agencies
that
fund
research,
including
10
of
the
Defense
Department’s
labs.
But
now
an
interagency
Memorandum
of
Understanding
has
been
thrashed
out
to
bring
in
the
other
206.

RELATED:

Hegseth
presses
defense
execs
to
move
faster
in
speech
laying
out
sweeping
acquisition
changes

“I
keep
checking
my
phone
this
morning
because
the
final
MOU
for
that
relationship
is
on
my
boss’s
desk
for
final
signature,”
Loftin
said
excitedly
on
a
panel
after
Michael’s
keynote
speech.
“So
hopefully,
maybe
even
before
the
end
of
the
day
we’ll
be
able
to
officially
start
the
process
of
getting
DoW,
as
a
whole,
onboarded
onto
iEDISON.”

Those
thousands
of
patents
won’t
be
available
for
free,
Michael
made
clear
—
although,
again,
he’s
willing
to
negotiate.

As
for

the
first
400
royalty-free
patents,
they’re

more
like
the
free
samples
a
supermarket
puts
on
display
to
get
customers
in
the
door,
he
told
reporters
after
his
speech.

“It’s
the
freebie
…
the
door-buster
…
the
loss-leader,”
Michael
said.
“Then
hopefully
you’ll
get
interested
enough
that
you
could
look
at
the
whole
broad
portfolio.”

That
said,
if
the
first
400
attract
not
only
a
lot
of
interest
but
actual
investment
that
starts
turning
into
usable
military
gear,
“maybe
we
expand
it,”
he
told
the
reporters.
“That’s
why
it’s
a
pilot,
right?
We’re
trying
to
see
what
happens
when
you
put
things
out
in
the
wild.”

In
fact,
the
whole
“Patent
Holiday”
idea
came
out
of
Michael’s
desire
to
hype
up
the
patent
database
and
get
things
moving
quickly,
one
of
his
subordinates
told
the
assembled
executives.

“I
was
like,
‘I
want
to
build
a

data
estate,’”
said

Steve
Luckowski,
the
Pentagon’s
director
of
Technology
Transfer,
Transition,
and
Commercial
Partnerships.

Luckowski
said
Michael
told
him,
“Let’s
curate
the
patents.
Let’s
analyze
them.
Let’s
make
them
available
to
industry.
Let’s
not
wait.
Let’s
move
fast.’”

AI
was
essential
to
that
speed,
Michael
told
reporters.
“We
used
our
best
minds
[on]
manufacturing,
biotechnology,
[etc.],
had
them
do
the
prompts
…
and
try
to
distill
it
down
to
something
that
they
thought
was
usable.
So
it
had
a
kind
of
machine
and
human
component
to
it.”

In
the
longer
run,
putting
all
the
Pentagon
patents
into
a
single,
searchable
database
is
a
classic
big-government,
big-data
problem.
There
are
thousands
of
files
scattered
across
hundreds
of
organizations
with
no
central
clearinghouse
or
common
standards.
Again,
it
will
take
AI
to
tame
the
chaos.

“You
heard
Hon.
Michael
talking
about
how
all
these
assets
are
all
over
the
place.
They’re
literally
scattered
amongst
the
216
laboratories,”
said

Clara
Asmail,
a
contractor
working
for
Michael’s
office
as
senior
program
manager
for
technology
transitions.
“It’s
very
challenging
to
be
able
to
compile,
department-wide,
all
of
those
assets.
So
that
is
the
crux
of
what
our
office
is
now
engaged
in
doing.”

“That
characterization
cannot
be
done
manually,”
Asmail
told
the
conference.
“Everybody
would
agree
here
the
reason
that
it’s
never
been
done,
but
we
now
finally
have
nascent
AI
tools
that,
if
we
are
careful
and
apply
them
in
a
way
that
we
are
intentional
…
we
can
start
that
processs.”