Why AI Disputes in Indonesia Should Avoid Court: Lincoln’s "Great Settlement" Wisdom

"Abraham Lincoln once famously advised lawyers to 'Discourage litigation. Compromise whenever you can...' Today, this legal philosophy is incredibly relevant when navigating AI legal disputes in Indonesia. As businesses rapidly adopt automated systems, rushing to court over algorithmic errors or intellectual property disputes often results in a 'real loss' in terms of time, costs, and resources."

The Rise of 'The Great Settlement' in the AI Era

In the high-stakes world of 2026 tech, we have officially entered the era of "The Great Settlement." The "Wild West" days of AI scraping are over, replaced by a complex web of billion-dollar licensing deals. Just look at the landscape today: OpenAI has locked in News Corp in a landmark $250 million deal, giving them legal access to the brands we read every day: The Wall Street Journal, The Times, Barron’s, and the New York Post. Google secured its future data pipeline by partnering with Reddit for $60 million a year, ensuring Gemini has a constant stream of human conversation to keep its models "real." Meta (Facebook/Instagram) recently finalized a series of agreements with Reuters for real-time news feeds and Newsmax to ensure their AI assistant can summarize breaking events legally. Anthropic (the makers of Claude), after a long legal standoff, recently finalized a record-shattering $1.5 billion settlement with a massive class of authors and publishers like Penguin Random House, effectively ending years of litigation in favor of a long-term "Peace Treaty."

Strategic Patience: Why Google Didn't Sue OpenAI

But even with all these deals, one question still lingers from the dawn of the AI era: Why did Google never sue OpenAI over the "T"? The "T" in ChatGPT stands for Transformer, an architecture detailed in the 2017 paper "Attention Is All You Need" by researchers at Google Brain. Google held the intellectual property that essentially built their biggest competitor. Instead of filing a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit to block OpenAI, Google chose a path of "strategic patience.”  They realized that in the AI world, being the industry standard is more valuable than being the warden. By allowing the Transformer architecture to become the industry standard, Google ensured the entire world was built on their language. If they had locked it behind a legal wall, they might have stifled the very innovation that now powers their own Gemini models.

Smart leaders are realizing that "winning" a legal battle often means losing the business war. We see this "co-opetition" strategy play out even further with Anthropic. While Anthropic’s Claude is a direct rival to Google’s Gemini, Google currently owns a 14% stake in Anthropic and has committed up to $40 billion in investment and cloud infrastructure. Google isn't looking to destroy its rival; it’s looking to own a piece of the entire ecosystem. They have realized that in the future, you don't win by being the only player; you win by owning the field everyone plays on.

Treating IP as a Bridge, Not a Shield: From IBM to Como 1907

The other companies also follow suit. IBM for example. IBM has long been the king of patents. For 29 consecutive years, IBM was the world’s patent king, often filing over 9,000 patents annually. Today, their total portfolio is a staggering 290,000 patent assets, with roughly 53,000 active granted patents in force. But their strategy has shifted. For years, they’ve treated IP as an asset class rather than a weapon. Instead of spending five years in court to block a competitor, they spend five minutes signing a licensing agreement. They realized that litigation is a cost center, while licensing is a revenue stream. They don’t want to stop you from using their tech. They want to get paid every time you do.

We see this same "positive-sum" mindset in the sports world. In a recent interview on the Business of Sport podcast, Mirwan Suwarso, President of Como 1907, shared a fascinating story about the club’s rise to the Champions League. Suwarso described a moment when Como was in direct competition with another Italian club for a specific player. In the traditional "zero-sum" world of football, this usually leads to a bidding war that drains both clubs' wallets. Instead, Suwarso picked up the phone and called the rival club’s president.

His proposal? "If you want him, go for it; we’ll back out. But if you buy him, give me one of your players in return."

By turning a competitor into a partner, Suwarso avoided overpaying and built a relationship of mutual benefit. The goal isn't to destroy the other party, but to optimize the outcome for the entire ecosystem. We all know that Como 1907 is backed by one of Indonesia's biggest conglomerates. These business leaders understand exactly which approach is best to build a business.

The Musk-OpenAI Exception: A Cautionary Tale for Average Businesses

Describing all of that still leaves me with the elephant in the room that could destroy the approach above: the scorched-earth legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI. Well, the Musk-OpenAI battle does not destroy the approach I explain above. However, it destroys a daydreaming session of people (or companies) thinking they are Elon Musk. Not everyone will reach a trillion-dollar net worth just last month or ever. In fact, Musk is the only one. Most companies do not have billions to spend on legal battle, so we should not treat this example as a standard.

Navigating the Cost of AI Legal Disputes in Indonesia

For the business landscape, the lesson above is clear: dispute is a high-cost project. In an Indonesian legal environment where resolving AI legal disputes and commercial lawsuits can take over 1,000 days to reach a final judgment, the 'Time Tax' is lethal to innovation. While business culture often prioritizes prestige by fighting a competitor to the bitter end, the smartest players understand that a partnership deal today is worth more than a Court judgment five years from now. As law begins to recognize IP as a bankable asset for financing, we must stop treating our intellectual property as a secret to be guarded and start treating it as a ticket to be sold. In the AI-driven economy of 2026, the biggest winner isn't the one who wins the most lawsuits.  It’s the one who turns their competitors into their best customers. Your rival isn't your enemy—they are simply a partner you haven't invoiced yet.