Delete all IP law: a billionaire’s switch from proprietor to opponent

Jack Dorsey tweeted, “Delete all IP law” on April 12, 2025. It is a strange position to take, considering the co-founder of Twitter has a current estimated stake of $1 billion in X Corp. and owns Block, Inc. (formerly Square).

X, formerly Twitter, currently has over 2500 live patents and over 160 registered trademarks. Block, a fintech company, currently holds over 2100 live patents and approximately 60 trademarks.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

Meanwhile, IP law is being scrutinized in courtrooms. Major ongoing cases involving technology giants are seeking to define whether training AI models on copyright-protected data constitutes “fair use” (e.g., The New York Times v. OpenAI and Getty Images v. Stability AI). Simultaneously, these tech giants resist allowing others to use their own IP under the same “fair use” exemption (e.g., X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd).

Various tech giants (X valued at around $44 billion, Meta valued at $1.3 trillion, OpenAI valued at $300 billion, Google/Alphabet Inc valued at $1.9 trillion, as examples) monetize platforms built on user-generated content. For years, these companies have relied on the paid and unpaid creative labor of users, and, as compensation, users have been free to use their services. These same companies now rely on this unpaid creative labor and more to train large-scale generative AI models with no compensation to creators, authors, or artists.

While some may argue that creators have open access to the AI models their work helps train, there are very few large-scale models that do not restrict details regarding weights, training data, or other important factors. Even Meta’s ostensibly “open source” LLaMA models restrict redistribution, fine-tuning, and commercial deployment under a highly conditional license. As authors, musicians, and artists demand fair compensation using IP frameworks, the same companies that flourished under those laws are questioning their legitimacy.

This juxtaposition is also amplifying a troubling dichotomy, where being “pro-AI” is equated to being “anti-IP.” Technology and IP are not opposites. Quite the contrary: being pro-innovation is, by necessity, being pro-IP. IP law, when functioning as intended, encourages creativity, enables technology innovation and transfer, and supports economic growth. Patents reward developments in R&D. Copyrights support authors and artists who depend on royalties. Trademarks ensure consumer trust. As WIPO summarises, “the role of intellectual property [is] in unleashing the potential of creativity and monetizing it to the benefits of creators, stakeholders, and society as a whole.” Without such rights, society could stagnate.

Dorsey, in a follow-up tweet, argued that IP license holders don’t always fairly compensate creators. This may be true, and there are many who will agree that IP law is far from perfect. Systems are outdated, and many key IP statutes and frameworks across the world date back to a time before personal computers, let alone modern AI. Reform is overdue. However, deleting IP law doesn’t solve poor compensation problems, as it simply guarantees no one is compensated at all. The very companies challenging fair licensing frameworks are the ones fighting even minimal creator remuneration. Without enforceable rights, musicians, illustrators, and writers would have no tools to push back against the free use of their work in datasets that power billion-dollar AI products.

Why does a tweet or two even matter? As TechCrunch journalist Anthony Ha recently noted, “The line between a random conversation on Twitter/X and actual government policy is thinner than it used to be.” Bad ideas from influential people can gain political traction with surprising speed. But, if there’s an upside to this moment, it’s that more people are talking about IP. Millions viewed Dorsey’s tweet.

Public understanding of IP is often non-existent, shaped more by occasional headlines than legal understanding. Many of us entered this profession almost by accident – we stumbled into it and loved it too much to leave. This is an opportunity to demystify IP law, explain how it serves not only corporations but individuals, and involve the public in reshaping it for the modern world.

IP law isn’t the enemy. Done right, it’s a collective social contract that underpins the creative and technological ecosystems we all depend on.

← Back to News