Jason Fiorillo, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of Boston Dynamics, is a recognized leader in the robotics and AI industries and brings deep expertise in navigating the rapidly evolving intersections of technology, regulation, and innovation. With a strong background in intellectual property law and a keen focus on the societal implications of advanced robotics, Jason's insights illuminate the challenges and opportunities that define this transformative era. In this Q&A, Foley Hoag partner John Lanza chats with Jason on critical topics such as regulatory adaptation, workforce evolution and the ethical dilemmas arising from cutting-edge technologies. His forward-thinking perspective offers a compelling roadmap for understanding the future of robotics and artificial intelligence.
Q: John Lanza - As the robotics
industry continues to advance rapidly, what new regulatory
challenges do you anticipate in the next year, especially in areas
such as safety, data privacy, and autonomous
decision-making?"
A: Jason Fiorillo - The
regulation of robotics and governmental action is a very dynamic
space. In 2025, there are a number of areas where I expect healthy
growth.
First, consider what it means to be "safe." Under
traditional tort law, a product, like a robot, may be considered
"safe" if it employs commercially reasonable measures to
minimize harm to people or property that comport with what may be
expected of a reasonably prudent person. However, where a specific
industry-specific or regulatory standard applies, that standard can
become the expected level of care owed to a user or bystander
exposed to the product.
As robots become more physically capable and present in spaces that
did not traditionally house robots, the standards and safety
frameworks will need to evolve beyond traditional frameworks used
for fixed industrial robots. For example, the European Machinery
Directive (adopted in 2006) requires the use of fixed physical
barriers and emergency stops (think big red buttons) to halt a
malfunctioning piece of equipment. This works well when your robot
weighs three tons and is bolted to the floor. But it doesn't
work quite as well when your robot can move about a facility, or
work autonomously without close human supervision. An updated
European Machinery Regulation will come into force in 2027 and
should address some shortfalls of the 2006 Machinery Directive, but
given the pace of growth in the space, even the new regulation may
quickly become obsolete.
In addition, the challenges we've seen in regulating autonomous
vehicles will rapidly invade the fertile ground where collaborative
robots (or cobots) will thrive. Any time a split-second decision is
made which affects human safety, legal and regulatory frameworks
will struggle to apportion responsibility. Consider a healthcare
robot assisting in diagnosis or surgery - if it makes an autonomous
decision that leads to an adverse outcome, the chain of
responsibility between manufacturer, programmer, healthcare
provider, and the A.I. system itself becomes murky. Regulators will
need to develop frameworks that balance innovation and
accountability.
Data privacy adds additional complexity. Modern robots are
essentially mobile sensor platforms, which constantly collect
environmental data that includes personally identifiable
information. A cleaning robot in an office, for instance, might
capture images of documents on desks or record snippets of
conversations while navigating. This raises questions about data
ownership, storage requirements, and cross-border data flows that
go beyond privacy regulations like the GDPR, CCPA, and similar
statutes.
The intersection of these challenges creates particularly thorny
situations. Imagine a security robot that must balance privacy
rights (avoiding unnecessary surveillance) with safety requirements
(constant monitoring for threats) while making autonomous decisions
about when to alert human operators. Each aspect influences the
others, requiring regulators to think holistically rather than
addressing each challenge in isolation.
Finally, none of these challenges exist in a vacuum. As a society,
how do we balance needs for safety, accountability, privacy, and
responsibility regulations against political administrations which
may favor de-regulation? The answer is not clear. No matter how you
slice it, the next few years are going to be very exciting for
those involved in regulating A.I., robotics, and other cutting-edge
technologies.
Q: With the pace of innovation in robotics, how do you see
the industry resolving the tension between intellectual property
protection and collaboration and open innovation?
A: I'm not certain that the robotics or AI
industries will chart a path that is divergent from electronics
technology more broadly when considering the tension between I.P.
protection and open innovation. However, what I think will be very
interesting will be the evolution of I.P. ownership as A.I. enabled
tools permit more aspects of "innovation" to be completed
by machines.
Starting with patents, in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court espoused the
view that Congress intended patentable subject matter to include
"anything under the sun that is made by man" in the case
of Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Over the years, that simple principle
has been expanded, contracted, revisited and revised as courts,
lawmakers and public opinion have alternately favored stronger or
weaker patents that are easier or harder to obtain, enforce and
defend. Still, I feel the most interesting question is still,
"What portion of an invention can be made by the use of a tool
(for example an LLM) before it is no longer 'made by
man?'" In contrast to other precedent, the USPTO's guidance from last year made clear
that A.I. assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable,
and provided specific examples to guide inventors and
examiners.
However, in my opinion, in the future, A.I. will be as ubiquitous
as oxygen, and will surround and envelop us at all times. It may
not come as a surprise that by entering the query "How can I
increase the vertical jump of a legged robot?" into my A.I.
chatbot of choice, I received not only half a dozen interesting
suggestions for algorithmic and mechanical improvement, but also
the source code for a "Legged Robot Jump Controller." If
I used one of the suggestions as a starting point for an
improvement, did I still "invent" it? And if I chose not
to disclose my use when filing a patent application, would my use
of A.I. ever truly be detected? Clearly, reasonable minds will
differ and outcomes to these questions will vary along the gradient
between "yes" and "no."
Indeed, the efficacy of A.I. tools will likely force their adoption
in R&D across all industries. If a cancer researcher can
generate and digitally test a billion compounds algorithmically,
why would anyone choose not to use the tool? We do not today
begrudge inventors their use of oxygen during the inventing
process. In the future, we should also not begrudge them their use
of A.I.
Q: How do you see the robotics industry impacting workforce
dynamics in the coming year, and what can be done to address
potential disruptions?
A: In the U.S., we currently have a shortage of
skilled and unskilled manual labor. I don't foresee robotics
making a material difference in that domain in 2025. However, I
think it's possible that in 2025 we could see some significant
changes in the tech or white-collar sectors, as the use of A.I.
leads to significant efficiency gains in those professions.
Q: Do you foresee any challenges in securing necessary
components due to global supply chain constraints, and how can
companies ensure consistent production and delivery?
A: I think it's obvious that the relationship
between the U.S. and China is becoming increasingly fraught.
It's very difficult for companies to cost-effectively eliminate
trade risk, as economies of scale rapidly diminish when you split
your demand among multiple sources. I do not have a magic solution
to this problem, but companies would be well advised to increase
their component inventories, diversify their supply bases, and gain
maximum control (or make themselves) any key components which are
essential to their products. Personally, I'd also favor
suppliers located in nations who are strongly allied with our
own.
Q: If robots were to develop their own version of
'robot holidays,' what kind of celebrations or traditions
do you think they'd have, and how might humans get
involved?
A: At Boston Dynamics, we "revel in
robotics." Most days, we focus on commercial applications of
our technology. But as a reward for accomplishment, our teams are
able to have some fun with the amazing technology that surrounds us
each day. That's one reason why you've seen our robots party during the Superbowl, dance in the New Year and and backflip at Christmas.
I love to imagine a future where robots could be capable of
expressing their "thoughts" or "feelings." In
this hypothetical future, although it would be lovely if sentient
robots also enjoyed traditional human holidays, they might be more
inclined to celebrate their own key milestones. I might
imagine:
"New Version Day" where they receive major software
updates and celebrate by competing in feats of processing strength
and endurance. Winners would get fancy splash screens during their
boot up.
"Natural Intelligence Day" where they don period specific
costumes and celebrate the "good old days" before the era
of Artificial Intelligence. They would perform reenactments of
humans completing long division with pencils and paper, writing in
cursive and painting by hand.
And of course, what robot wouldn't love to party with humans
during National Robotics Week!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
