A few months ago, after reading the Harvard Business Review article “Can AI Agents Be Trusted?” by Blair Levin and Larry Downs, I shared a brief reflection on LinkedIn. My observation at the time was that agentic AI seemed to be moving from the testing phase toward real implementation, and that the conversation might soon shift from who should regulate AI to what aspects of AI need to be regulated as these systems become goal oriented. In response, Garrison English, Esq., MBA raised an important question: if AI agents become goal-oriented systems, how should accountability and oversight evolve when these tools begin integrating into critical sectors? At the time, I did not respond immediately. But the recent excitement around Claude Cowork made me revisit that question. Ever since Claude Cowork made its debut, the buzz around it being a “game changer” has been relentless. Nearly every day my Google Alerts seemed to be filled with articles discussing it. The trigger for this excite...
In today’s fast-paced, technology-driven world, intellectual property (IP) is no longer just a legal asset or a checkbox for investors. IP has become a powerful marketing tool—cutting across industries and departments. Whenever there's a conversation around mergers and acquisitions, divestments, spin-offs, or joint ventures, two terms often come up: technology transfer and licensing . Technology transfer is exactly what it sounds like—the sharing or transmission of technology. This can include know-how, skills, manufacturing methods, and other proprietary knowledge. But here's the key: there is no transfer of IP ownership and no permission to use the IP unless explicitly stated. The IP stays with the original owner. You’ll typically see this kind of collaboration between universities and industries, governments and private entities, or within multinational corporations—where regional teams share innovations to boost R&D and bring products from the lab to the market. ...