Ex-Trump IP Official Calls Copyright the 'Great Equalizer' in AI Fight

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief backing OpenAI's expansive reading of the fair use doctrine — and a former Trump administration IP official says that position threatens the property rights underpinning the American economy.

The clash centers on lawsuits from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and, most recently, USA Today owner Gannett, all of which accuse OpenAI of training ChatGPT on their articles in ways that violate copyright. OpenAI contends it needs no license because fair use permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission. The DOJ has now weighed in on OpenAI's side.

A former deputy under secretary of Commerce for intellectual property and deputy director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the second Trump administration argues that keeping American labs ahead in artificial intelligence — recently rechristened "super intelligence" by President Trump — matters for economic and national security. But federal officials and Congress, the official warns, risk undermining the property rights that let small innovators compete with wealthy corporations.

"In other words, they're the 'great equalizer' of the U.S. economy — they level the playing field between small innovators and powerful corporations, giving anyone with a good idea a chance to succeed," the former official writes of copyrights and patents.

What is the historical argument?

For most of human history, no one treated ideas as property. Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas never developed anything resembling modern intellectual property. Only during the Enlightenment did governments begin granting creators legal protection.

America's Founding Fathers led that charge. The Constitution's Intellectual Property Clause empowers Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The clause linked a public objective to a private property right — and the result, the author argues, ran from harvesting machines to airplanes.

Who benefited from patent protection?

The piece leans on biography to make its case. Elias Howe, a Massachusetts farmer's son who worked in a textile mill, patented a practical sewing machine in 1846. The patent gave him enforceable ownership even as larger manufacturers entered the market, and the industry that grew around it transformed American clothing manufacturing.

Thomas Edison sold newspapers and candy on trains before working as a telegraph operator. He accumulated more than a thousand U.S. patents, which helped him attract investment, build companies and commercialize everything from recorded sound to electric lighting.

J.K. Rowling wrote the first chapters of the Sorcerer's Stone as a single mother in Edinburgh cafés. Owning the copyright let her license her creation into films, television, theme parks and Broadway — entertaining hundreds of millions and making her a billionaire.

Then there is Aaron Krause. His patents on an improved sponge became the asset he brought to Shark Tank, where Lori Greiner invested $200,000. Scrub Daddy now generates roughly $220 million a year — a return of more than a thousandfold on Greiner's check.

Can small firms beat giants in court?

The author points to medical device maker Acumed, a family business with a single machinist in the late 1980s that patented orthopedic devices, including a specialized nail for upper-arm and shoulder fractures. When a medical-device giant copied the technology — despite warnings from its own lawyers about infringement — Acumed sued and won. A jury found willful infringement, and a district court granted a permanent injunction.

Stryker appealed. The Federal Circuit initially vacated the injunction after the Supreme Court's 2006 eBay v. MercExchange ruling set stricter injunction standards. The district court ultimately granted a new injunction, upheld on appeal in 2008 — but the episode, in the author's telling, shows how a deep-pocketed defendant can stretch a smaller rival through years of litigation.

What does the research show?

The piece cites research finding that five years after companies obtain their first patent, they post 55% higher employment growth and 80% higher sales growth than firms that did not receive those first patents. The former official now leads the Council for Innovation Promotion, a bipartisan coalition advocating strong IP rights.

The argument is an opinion piece, and it does not address counterarguments — such as OpenAI's position that fair use has long covered transformative applications, or the economic case that broader training access accelerates AI development. What it does establish is the stakes: if courts accept the DOJ's reading, future Howes and Rowlings may find their leverage over larger rivals sharply reduced.