Quantum Computing and Competition Law: Gasser, Aboy et al. Submit Comments to Italian Competition Authority AGCM

Seven scholars—Urs Gasser, Mateo Aboy, I. Glenn Cohen, Mauritz Kop, Fabienne Marco, Timo Minssen, and John Palfrey—have submitted comments to the Italian Competition Authority's public consultation on quantum computing — an early move by a major competition regulator into a market still being formed.

Five dimensions, one variable

The AGCM asked about market structure, competitive dynamics, intellectual property, consolidation, and strategic dependencies. The submission's answer: all five run through interoperability—who sets the interfaces, who governs the benchmarks, and whether early cloud-access arrangements harden into path dependence before conventional indicators of dominance ever appear. Quantum architectures are incommensurable, not merely incompatible, which makes the usual platform-market playbook an imperfect guide and benchmark governance a first-order competition issue.

Measured on the evidence

The scholars are deliberately unalarmist: the submission reports that current patent data shows no anticommons, with concentration below mature classical-computing markets. The genuine risk is narrower—rights over interface-critical elements becoming unavoidable as standards crystallize, and three compounding forms of lock-in (technical, administrative, organizational) closing a market that still looks open on paper. The team's years of groundwork, from Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation to the patent-landscape studies, supplies the empirical base.

Process before prescription

The recommendations are staged: monitoring and transparency first, disclosure-oriented safeguards where dependencies form, intervention only on demonstrated exclusion—plus competition safeguards built directly into quantum standard-setting, from ISO/IEC JTC 3 to the emerging EU Quantum Act. In a market still being formed, the scholars argue, the right question is not what the market should look like, but whether the processes shaping it remain open, revisable, and not prematurely foreclosed.

Meer lezen

Quantum Computing, Competition Law, GovernanceHenry Quentir20 april 2026Mauritz Kop, Urs Gasser, I. Glenn Cohen, Quantum Governance, Intellectual Property, Standards, AGCM, Competition Law, Antitrust, Interoperability, EU Quantum Act, Mateo Aboy, Timo Minssen, John Palfrey

Intellectual Property in Quantum Computing and Market Power: A Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Analysis (Oxford University Press)

Delighted to see our article ‘Intellectual Property in Quantum Computing and Market Power: A Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Analysis’ -co-authored with my talented friends Prof. Mateo Aboy, PhD, SJD, FIT and Prof. Timo Minssen- published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford University Press), the flagship IP peer-reviewed OUP Journal, edited by Prof. Eleonora Rosati. Thanks to the JIPLP team for excellent editorial support! Our article: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/17/8/613/6646536

This piece is the sisterpaper of our Max Planck @ Springer Nature published article titled ‘Mapping the Patent Landscape of Quantum Technologies: Patenting Trends, Innovation and Policy Implications’, which we wrote in parallel. The IIC quantum-patent study can be found here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-022-01209-3. Our teamwork was absolutely gratifying and we hope it will inform strategic, evidence based transatlantic policy making.

IP and Antitrust Law

Please find a short synopsis of our work below:

We are on the verge of a technological revolution associated with quantum technologies, including quantum computing and quantum/artificial intelligence hybrids. Its complexity and global significance are creating potential innovation distortions, which could not have been foreseen when current IP and antitrust systems where developed.

Potential IP Overprotection

Using quantitative methods, we investigated our hypothesis that IP overprotection requires a reform of existing IP regimes for quantum tech, to avoid or repair IP thickets, fragmented exclusionary rights and anticommons concerns, lost opportunity costs, and an unwanted concentration of market power.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, we found that there appear to be (at least so far) no such overprotection problems in the real-world quantum computing field to the extent that their consequences would hinder exponential innovation in this specific branch of applied quantum technology, as more and more quantum patent information enters the public domain.

Patents versus Trade Secrets and State Secrets

However, developments taking place in secrecy, either by trade secrets or state secrets, remains the Achilles heel of our empirical approach, as information about these innovations is not represented by our dataset, and thus cannot be observed, replicated or generalized.

Interplay between IP and Antitrust Law: Open or Closed Innovation Systems

Policy makers should urgently answer questions regarding pushing for open or closed innovation systems including the interplay between IP and antitrust law, taking into account dilemma’s pertaining to equal/equitable access to benefits, risk control, ethics, and overall societal impact. Crucially, intellectual property in quantum technology has a national safety and (cyber)security dimension, often beyond the IP toolkit.