Artificiële Intelligentie & Recht
Innovation, Quantum-AI Technology & Law
0

Blog over Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum, Deep Learning, Blockchain en Big Data Law

Blog over juridische, sociale, ethische en policy aspecten van Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum Computing, Sensing & Communication, Augmented Reality en Robotica, Big Data Wetgeving en Machine Learning Regelgeving. Kennisartikelen inzake de EU AI Act, de Data Governance Act, cloud computing, algoritmes, privacy, virtual reality, blockchain, robotlaw, smart contracts, informatierecht, ICT contracten, online platforms, apps en tools. Europese regels, auteursrecht, chipsrecht, databankrechten en juridische diensten AI recht.

Berichten in Governance
The Quantum Internet: Teleportation, Entanglement, QKD, PQC and Hybrid Security Strategies
The Quantum Internet: Teleportation, Entanglement, QKD, PQC and Hybrid Security Strategies

The quantum internet will do something classical networks cannot do at all: distribute entanglement between cities, teleport quantum states, and detect interception at the protocol level. This explainer walks the whole stack for a legal and policy audience: teleportation, quantum key distribution over fiber and satellite, the NIST post-quantum standards, and the hybrid strategies that boards and ministries must adopt long before the network itself matures. The physics is subtle. The policy consequences are concrete and come with deadlines.

What Delft, The Hague and the Micius satellite have already demonstrated

The milestones are no longer thought experiments. In 2024, researchers entangled quantum processors in Delft and The Hague over 25 kilometers of ordinary underground telecom fiber, a genuine metropolitan quantum network link. China's Micius satellite has distributed quantum keys between ground stations 7,600 kilometers apart, securing a videoconference between Beijing and Vienna. The strategic significance of who builds and controls these networks is examined in the CNAS Entanglement Edge quantum networking report. Teleportation itself is routinely misread: it transfers a quantum state using entanglement plus a classical signal. No matter moves, nothing exceeds light speed, and the original state is destroyed.

Why the post-quantum deadlines exist years before the hardware

The urgency is cryptographic. A future quantum computer running Shor's algorithm breaks RSA and elliptic-curve encryption, and adversaries are already recording traffic to decrypt later, the harvest-now-decrypt-later attack. NIST answered in August 2024 with its first finalized post-quantum standards (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) and selected the code-based HQC in March 2025 as a future backup. Migration timelines from U.S. and European authorities cluster around 2030 to 2035. For long-lived data, interception already creates the confidentiality risk, because retained ciphertext may become readable later.

How layered security replaces the search for a single quantum fix

The central argument is architectural. Security in the quantum transition comes from hybrid strategies: classical plus post-quantum key establishment, AES-256 payload encryption, QKD only on high-value links where its trusted-node risks are consciously accepted, and crypto-agility as the governing design principle. The analysis closes with a concrete sequence for enterprises and governments: build the cryptographic inventory, triage data by confidentiality lifetime, write post-quantum requirements into procurement and audits, and run quantum-network pilots with candid trusted-node risk assessments. Read on to see how physics, standards, and statecraft interlock, and why the migration calendar is an obligation of today.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Quantum Computing, GovernanceMauritz Kopquantum internet, QKD, post-quantum cryptography, AES-256, quantum teleportation, hybrid security
Geopolitical Risk to Critical Raw Materials in Quantum Computing: Stanford GTG White Paper by Lee, Grotto and Kop
Geopolitical Risk to Critical Raw Materials in Quantum Computing: Stanford GTG White Paper by Lee, Grotto and Kop

The quantum race is usually told in qubit counts and error rates. A 2025 Stanford GTG white paper by Min-Ha Lee, Andrew J. Grotto, and Mauritz Kop tells it as a story about minerals: the critical raw materials that every major quantum-computing hardware modality requires, and the short list of countries that control them.

Which materials every qubit technology needs

Strontium and ytterbium for neutral atoms, niobium for superconducting circuits, indium for bump-bonds, tantalum for oscillators, and helium-3 for the dilution refrigerators that cool it all to millikelvin temperatures. Every qubit modality carries its own mineral bill, and many inputs have supplier geographies measured in a handful of countries. About 90 percent of niobium is mined in Brazil alone, and China dominates both the mining and the processing of the rare-earth elements that quantum lasers, magnets, and optics consume. Add isotopically enriched silicon-28 and specialty photonics, and the bill of materials reads like a stress test of globalization.

How the authors score the choke points

The paper's contribution is a sector-specific risk methodology: score each material on supply-chain vulnerability, exploitability, and strategic impact, instead of relying on cross-sectoral national lists that blur what quantum computing needs. The exercise confirms the rare earths as critical and elevates a sleeper, high-purity molybdenum, which the report identifies as an under-examined enabler in the device and substrate supply chain. It is the same strategic terrain mapped in An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons, now extended to the mineral layer.

Why China's 2024 and 2025 export controls make this urgent

The risk is already active. Building on its 2023 gallium and germanium controls and its 2024 antimony controls, Beijing tightened export controls in December 2024 and extended them in 2025 to bismuth, indium, molybdenum, tellurium, tungsten, and heavy rare earths, and prices for several of them spiked. The authors' warning cuts both ways: concentrated supply invites coercion, and unilateral controls invite self-sufficiency drives that fracture the very supply chains they aim to protect. Multilateral coordination, stockpiling, recycling, and diversified sourcing work best before an industry scales, and quantum is still, briefly, at that stage.

The full post walks through the methodology, the materials inventory, the 2024 and 2025 control wave, the follow-on Quantum Criticality Index research agenda, and why supply-chain concentration is becoming a standard due-diligence question for technology counsel.

Meer lezen
Geopolitics, Quantum Computing, GovernanceMauritz Kopcritical raw materials, quantum supply chain, helium-3, export controls, geopolitics
War on the Rocks Publishes 'Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First'
War on the Rocks Publishes 'Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First'

One Race, Five Fronts

War on the Rocks published Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First on July 20, 2026 — a new essay by Mauritz Kop, founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, and Joseph Federici of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Its argument: the United States and its allies should field strategically significant quantum capabilities before China does, and should run cryptography, quantum-AI, networks, sensing, and the supply chain as one race under one office. The Commission's goal is Quantum First by 2030. The essay opens with the threat that makes the goal urgent — hard drives filling up with harvested encrypted traffic, waiting for a quantum computer to read the vulnerable public-key layer — and walks each front: federal migration deadlines for high-value systems whose private-sector counterparts are, in the authors' words, "only being asked politely"; a speculative "X-Ray City" scenario in which quantum sensors fuse with AI into a surveillance layer the authors say no policy document yet addresses; China's quantum-secure communications network of more than 12,000 kilometers and the risk of network standards written in Beijing; and a supply chain that, in the essay's assessment, no single country can build alone.

From Bletchley Park to European Boardrooms

The essay is the natural successor to "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age," carrying the Bletchley method — science, engineering, operations, and alliance management as one integrated system — from the cryptographic migration to the entire quantum ecosystem. Kop writes that it grows from the scholarship of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, inaugurated in 2023 during Mark Rutte's Stanford visit, with work published in Science, Nature Physics, and the Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Berkeley law journals. Read from Europe, the essay previews questions heading for European agendas: migration deadlines that travel through procurement chains and G7 coordination, a cryptographic inventory that is turning into a board-level question for entities covered by NIS2 and DORA, and export-control and certification choices that will shape the European quantum market. In this post we summarize the essay's five fronts, place it in the Stanford quantum governance corpus, and set out our analysis of what Quantum First asks of European general counsel, compliance teams, and boards — starting with the contracts their organizations sign this year.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopWar on the Rocks, Quantum Governance, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Quantum First, Supply Chains
Industriepolitiek en quantumrecht: de Amerikaanse decreten van juni 2026
Industriepolitiek en quantumrecht: de Amerikaanse decreten van juni 2026

Op 22 juni 2026 tekende het Witte Huis twee presidentiële besluiten die samen één beweging vormen: de Verenigde Staten verheffen quantumtechnologie tot instrument van industriepolitiek. Het eerste besluit lanceert een nationaal programma voor de eerste quantumcomputer die het tijdperk van quantum-gedreven wetenschappelijke ontdekking moet inluiden; het tweede legt de federale overheid harde deadlines op voor de migratie naar post-quantumcryptografie. Wie de twee naast elkaar legt, ziet geen losse beleidsdaden maar een strategie — en die strategie heeft juridische gevolgen tot ver buiten de Amerikaanse grens.

Wat er verandert voor exportcontrole en investeringstoetsing

Zodra een staat een opkomende technologie tot industriepolitiek verheft, bewegen exportcontrole, onderzoeksbeveiliging en buitenlandse-investeringstoetsing mee. Quantum belandt daarmee in dezelfde categorie als halfgeleiders: een dual-use-technologie waar nationale veiligheid en economische zekerheid samenvallen. Voor Europese onderzoekers en bedrijven die met Amerikaanse partners samenwerken, verandert de context waarin afspraken over intellectuele eigendom, data en personeel tot stand komen — ook zonder dat er één regel Europees recht wijzigt.

De cryptografische klok tikt tot 2030

Het tweede besluit zet de scherpste juridische klok: federale high-value assets en high-impact-systemen moeten uiterlijk eind 2030 over op door NIST goedgekeurde post-quantumcryptografie. De achterliggende dreiging is harvest-now-decrypt-later: data die vandaag wordt onderschept, is straks alsnog leesbaar. Voor organisaties met langlevende vertrouwelijke gegevens verschuift de migratie daarmee van ICT-project naar zorgplichtvraag — een verschuiving die via artikel 32 AVG ook de Europese praktijk raakt. Hoe u die inventarisatie bestuurlijk aanpakt, leest u in onze analyse van de cryptografische inventaris als bestuursdossier.

Een transatlantische maatstaf in plaats van twee reflexen

De Verenigde Staten sturen via missiegericht overheidsgeld en beveiligingsmaatregelen; de Europese Unie reguleert kunstmatige intelligentie (artificiële intelligentie) en straks mogelijk ook quantum via horizontale kaders die innovatie en grondrechten in balans houden. Beide logica's hebben een gedeelde maatstaf nodig. In deze analyse leggen we uit waarom de LSI-toets — het smalste effectieve, innovatiebehoudende instrument — die maatstaf kan zijn, wat de Amerikaanse termijnen betekenen voor Nederlandse en Europese organisaties, en waarom wie nu begint met exportclassificatie en een cryptografisch migratieplan straks minder last heeft van een deadline die via een ander rechtsstelsel toch op de mat valt.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopQuantumtechnologie, Exportcontrole, Post-quantumcryptografie, Industriepolitiek
From Kananaskis to Évian: Will the G7 Govern Quantum, or Keep Describing It?
From Kananaskis to Évian: Will the G7 Govern Quantum, or Keep Describing It?

When G7 leaders meet in Évian-les-Bains from June 15 to 17, 2026, quantum technology sits on the leaders' table for a second consecutive year. In a new CIGI op-ed, Stanford and CIGI legal scholar Mauritz Kop argues that the era of shared values and summit language has run its course: between the Kananaskis Common Vision and the OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies, the conceptual groundwork is done. What remains is implementation — and implementation is what voluntary coordination delivers slowly, unevenly, or never.

From a Common Vision to Working Machinery

Kananaskis named the right concerns in June 2025 but built light machinery — no timelines, no benchmarks, no procurement commitments. A year on, Kop puts the question to Évian directly: does the G7 intend to govern quantum, or to keep describing it? His answer is not another principles instrument but a delivery body with named products and deadlines, reporting back to leaders at the 2027 summit.

Five Decisions for Évian

The piece sets out five decisions leaders can take in France: post-quantum cryptography migration milestones for critical infrastructure; trusted and resilient quantum supply chains; standards-based governance backed by procurement; dual-use coordination through a least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient and innovation-preserving (LSI) test; and vigilance on the market structure of an industry already concentrating around a few compute-, patent- and talent-rich incumbents.

Each decision turns a value into something auditable. The "harvest-now, decrypt-later" threat makes cryptographic migration a present-tense problem with an unknown deadline; when Google gives itself until 2029, governments that have given themselves ten years should take notice. The same logic runs through supply-chain chokepoints, technical standards and export controls — defaults that will be written by someone, and better written deliberately than by accident.

The Window Is Still Open

Quantum is leaving the laboratory and becoming strategic infrastructure, a shift central banks already treat as systemic. The window for writing the rules of the road remains open, Kop warns, but it will not stay open forever. For the legal and policy background to the dual-use argument, see our coverage of the LSI test for securing the quantum industrial commons.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopQuantum Governance, G7, CIGI, Post-Quantum Cryptography, OECD, Dual-Use, Market Power, Supply Chains, Quantum Technology
NATO StratCom Features Mauritz Kop as Subject Matter Expert in Workshop Video on Quantum and Cognitive Sovereignty
NATO StratCom Features Mauritz Kop as Subject Matter Expert in Workshop Video on Quantum and Cognitive Sovereignty

The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence engaged Mauritz Kop as a subject-matter expert for its Riga workshop The Integrity of Reality and Cognitive Sovereignty—via a thirty-minute video interview recorded as study material for participants and as input to the Centre's threatcasting work.

A video briefing for Riga

Held in early June 2026, in the week of the Centre's flagship Riga StratCom Dialogue, the workshop examined what happens to shared truth when both conflict and communication are increasingly automated. Kop's recorded interview adds the layer the strategic-communications field is only beginning to map: the quantum layer. His opening line does the analytical work of a whole briefing—the past is not yet stable. The argument extends the case he made when the Hoover Institution invited him to speak on quantum, democracy, and authoritarianism.

Three quantum pressures on the mind's privacy

The interview names three converging pressures on cognitive sovereignty: civic-scale quantum sensing that, in principle, could resolve subsurface and interior spaces from public rights-of-way—what Kop calls the X-Ray City scenario; quantum-enhanced biosensing and brain-computer interfaces that open the inference of mental states; and the temporal instability of the cryptographic record under harvest-now, decrypt-later collection. For the first two, Kop argues for capability protection—prohibition-grade guardrails at the infrastructure layer, not consent forms after deployment.

Why communicators should care about cryptography

An adversary who can retroactively forge or contest the signed record does not need to fabricate convincingly—only to seed doubt at scale. The interview's prescription is precision over speed: the LSI test for every proposed control, standards-first governance, and verifiable allied migration to post-quantum cryptography as the strategic-communications measure rarely recognized as one.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Geopolitics, GovernanceHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, National Security, Quantum Governance, Geopolitics, Post-Quantum Cryptography, NATO, NATO StratCom COE, Cognitive Sovereignty, Riga StratCom Dialogue, Threatcasting, Quantum Sensing
OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies Builds on Responsible Quantum Principles Developed at Stanford RQT
OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies Builds on Responsible Quantum Principles Developed at Stanford RQT

On May 28, 2026, the OECD Council adopted OECD/LEGAL/0508, the Recommendation of the Council on Quantum Technologies—the first intergovernmental standard to set shared principles for the responsible development and use of trusted quantum technologies. Its four high-level principles and five policy recommendations will read as familiar to anyone who has followed responsible-quantum scholarship, because the instrument's core ideas track work that the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and its founder, Mauritz Kop, helped build over the previous half-decade.

The first intergovernmental quantum standard

Developed through a multistakeholder process—forty-seven experts from twenty-six nationalities across four scoping meetings in 2025, building on the OECD's January 2025 Quantum Technologies Policy Primer—the Recommendation asks all Actors to promote innovation that respects democratic values, to prevent and mitigate harms across the technology lifecycle, to promote secure and broad access, to facilitate collaboration, and to foster accountability and trustworthiness. It is non-binding but normatively weighty: thirty-eight adherents are now expected to implement it through their own legal frameworks. The OECD's broader responsible-quantum-technology agenda has long argued that the field needs exactly this kind of shared, anticipatory baseline.

A visible lineage, not a formal citation

The Recommendation names no academic source, and nothing in its text formally credits Stanford RQT. What it shows is conceptual lineage. Its lifecycle-embedded, values-first framing echoes the Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation; its post-quantum-cryptography and quantum-resilient-infrastructure language draws on the same concern with cryptanalysis that animated Kop's 2021 Yale legal-ethical framework; its accountability-and-trustworthiness principle parallels families in the World Economic Forum Quantum Computing Governance Principles he helped conceptualize; and its call for science-based standards mirrors the standards-first program he and colleagues set out in Science. Kop was among the experts consulted in the course of the OECD's quantum-policy work, an engagement that sits within a longer record of peer-reviewed calls for responsible quantum technology.

Why anticipation is the right posture

Both the Recommendation and the scholarship it echoes favor agile, forward-looking, evidence-based governance—and the physics explains why. Quantum technologies draw their power from superposition and entanglement, phenomena that do not scale gently: an entanglement-enabled sensor can cross a sensitivity threshold, and a cryptanalytically relevant machine can render trusted public-key cryptography suddenly breakable, in ways that arrive nonlinearly. Governance that waits for a capability to mature arrives too late by construction. This is the case the responsible-quantum field, including the Quantum-ELSPI research agenda, has pressed since 2021—and the case OECD/LEGAL/0508 now encodes for thirty-eight economies.

What comes next

The Recommendation tasks the OECD's Digital Policy Committee and Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy to develop practical guidance and to report back within five years, so the standard is built to evolve with the technology. Its arrival signals that these responsible-quantum arguments have reached the institutions that set international norms—a quiet but consequential validation of work begun years earlier at Stanford.

Meer lezen
Stanford RQT, Governance, Quantum TechnologyHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Policy, Standards, Human Rights, Ethics, OECD, OECD-LEGAL-0508, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, International Standards, Responsible Quantum Innovation
Mauritz Kop Interviewed for IDC PeerScape Report on Quantum Computing Governance Practices
Mauritz Kop Interviewed for IDC PeerScape Report on Quantum Computing Governance Practices

International Data Corporation (IDC), the global IT market-intelligence firm, has published IDC PeerScape: Practices for Quantum Computing Governance (May 2026, Doc # US54518926), by David Weldon and Heather West, PhD. The report distills how forward-thinking organizations are building governance for quantum computing on top of their existing data and risk-management practices—and Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, was interviewed and contributed expert responses for attribution.

A buyer-side discipline, not a research curiosity

The PeerScape genre is peer-learning guidance: IDC collects what organizations already moving on a problem are doing and packages it for the technology buyer—the CIO, CISO, and risk owner. By treating quantum governance this way, an established IT-research house signals that quantum readiness has become a present-tense program for enterprises, not a topic reserved for policy seminars. The organizations profiled include the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, an academic center, alongside industry organizations.

The two-pronged risk

IDC frames the urgency around the cryptographic clock. Sensitive data needs protection now against "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks, in which encrypted traffic captured today is unsealed once a sufficiently capable quantum computer exists; and migrating critical infrastructure to post-quantum cryptographic standards is complex enough that it must begin now. The arithmetic is unforgiving: any data whose confidentiality must outlast the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum machines is at risk, which is why migration is a near-term governance obligation rather than a deferred IT task.

Governance engineered as an operating system

Kop's contribution carries the through-line of his work at Stanford RQT: turning quantum governance from principles into implementable operating models. He describes strategies that are operational (decision rights, controls, assurance, lifecycle gates), strategic (dual-use posture and geopolitics), and domain-aware (post-quantum cryptography, intellectual property, and sectoral use cases in medicine, finance, and space). Principles alone, he argues, do not scale—governance must be engineered with explicit RACI, stage-gates, documentation, and assurance, and a standards-based quantum-technology quality management system gives organizations an auditable, repeatable baseline.

Part of a widening practitioner record

The IDC interview joins a pattern of bringing responsible-quantum research to the people who must implement it, complementing Kop's policy work such as the global quantum policy brief published by CIGI. The same operating-system thesis recurs across audiences—from risk professionals to IT buyers to states—because it is designed to scale across functions. The deeper lesson is that quantum governance is best treated as an asset to build now: organizations that map their use cases, stage-gate their controls, adopt standards-first assurance, and plan for regulatory interoperability convert a long-horizon threat into resilience and license to operate. Readers can find more on the underlying scholarship through Kop's profile and selected works.

Meer lezen
Quantum Computing, Governance, StandardizationMauritz KopMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Standards, Policy, IDC, PeerScape, Post-Quantum Cryptography, QT-QMS, Quantum Computing, Risk Management
Stanford and Los Alamos Researchers Publish Critical Quantum Minerals Dashboard
Stanford and Los Alamos Researchers Publish Critical Quantum Minerals Dashboard

Quantum computers are usually discussed in the vocabulary of physics—qubits, coherence, error correction. A new Stanford–Los Alamos preprint argues that the decisive vocabulary of the next decade may instead be geological: niobium, nickel, indium, tantalum, helium-3. Min-Ha Lee, Alan J. Hurd, Jolante Wieke van Wijk, and Mauritz Kop map the critical minerals and materials that every serious quantum platform silently depends on, and show how concentrated mining, refining, and qualification chokepoints can convert commercial dependence into strategic vulnerability.

Why a dashboard, and why now

The Stanford–Los Alamos team's central proposal is a Quantum Criticality and Critical Minerals (QCCM) dashboard: a continuously updated, allied decision-support instrument—grounded in the preprint's two-level criticality screening—that tracks concentration, substitutability, qualification bottlenecks, stockpiling gaps, and geopolitical stress signals across quantum computing, sensing, and networking. The argument is institutional rather than technical—static national critical-minerals lists, however valuable, refresh on bureaucratic timelines, while administrative export-control actions move markets in weeks. When China added bismuth to its dual-use control list in February 2025, the spot price rose roughly tenfold within two months. An instrument that registers such signals continuously is the difference between awareness and resilience.

Two use cases, one lesson

The authors develop the argument through two concrete cases. The first is niobium, the backbone of superconducting qubits: roughly ninety percent of world production comes from Brazil, the United States imports all of it, and Chinese state-linked groups have spent a decade quietly acquiring the assets. The second is the space-qualified single-photon detector, where radiation and thermal stress can degrade a quantum communications link into insecurity long before the hardware visibly fails. The lesson is the same in both: criticality lives at every layer of the stack—ore, refining, isotopes, components, qualification—and a strategy that only counts qubits will miss it. The same blind spot extends to national stockpiles, which exclude by statute the gases and isotopes—helium-3 above all—on which dilution refrigeration and quantum sensing actually run.

Materials policy as quantum statecraft

What elevates this preprint beyond supply-chain analysis is its placement of materials within the architecture of quantum statecraft: supply assurance and post-quantum cryptography migration as twin pillars of security, standards-aligned governance as the multiplier, and allied coordination as the operating system. It is a natural companion to the geostrategic analysis in the Oxford lecture on quantum threats, extending that argument from algorithms and adversaries down to the periodic table. For governments drafting quantum strategies, for industry qualifying components, and for scholars of economic security, the message is direct: the quantum age will be built from materials the democratic world does not currently control—and managing that fact deserves an instrument of its own.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Quantum Computing, GovernanceHenry QuentirStanford RQT, National Security, Geopolitics, Export Controls, supply chains, CIGI, Quantum Governance, Mauritz Kop, Cybersecurity, Critical Minerals, Niobium, QCCM Dashboard, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Quantum Computing and Competition Law: Gasser, Aboy et al. Submit Comments to Italian Competition Authority AGCM
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 QuentirMauritz 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
Quantum Nexus LSI Test Published by Vanderbilt JET Law
Quantum Nexus LSI Test Published by Vanderbilt JET Law

Most technology law arrives too late: the architecture ships, the market consolidates, and legislators are left regulating what already exists. A new essay in Vanderbilt's Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law argues that quantum technology presents the opposite—and far rarer—situation, and explains what the law should do with it. Quantum law is being written before quantum technology has fully arrived, and that timing is not a defect to apologize for but an opportunity to seize.

A test with three prongs

At the center of the essay stands the LSI test, a doctrinal instrument for dual-use governance that asks of every state intervention whether it is the least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, and innovation-preserving measure available. The shift in emphasis is subtle but consequential: the question is no longer whether a government possesses a restrictive tool—export control, outbound investment screening, patent secrecy—but whether it is deploying the narrowest one that actually works. Between the romantics of total openness and the reflexes of total restriction, the test stakes out a defensible middle ground the essay calls security-sufficient openness.

Patents and export controls, one system

The essay's second contribution is diagnostic. Intellectual property and national security are conventionally treated as separate fields with separate experts and separate statutes. In quantum practice they behave as one entangled legal control plane: a single patent disclosure can simultaneously raise eligibility questions under Alice, research-security questions under the export-control regime, and commercialization questions under Bayh-Dole and the federal acquisition rules. Reading them together is not an academic nicety—it is the only way to see where over-securitization would quietly strangle the startups, standards participation, and allied interoperability on which democratic quantum leadership depends, a dynamic explored across the MINDS quantum strategy research at CIGI.

From a six-paragraph essay to a coalition playbook

Behind the essay stands the full Quantum Nexus Article—a book-length treatment on arXiv that develops the LSI test into an implementable coalition playbook: empirically anchored criteria, differentiated guardrails with red-zone domains where denial is the default, and secure closed-loop enclaves for high-sensitivity collaborative research. The stakes are framed without euphemism: U.S. assessments now call for a Quantum First posture by 2030, China's program advances under military-civil fusion, and the choice before democratic legislators is whether the coming wall of quantum regulation will be disciplined by doctrine or improvised under pressure. For lawyers, the essay is a preview of their next decade; for policymakers, it is a usable standard; and for the quantum community, it is an argument that the rules now being written deserve the same precision as the systems they will govern.

Meer lezen
Intellectual Property, Quantum Technology, GovernanceHenry QuentirIntellectual Property, National Security, Dual-Use, Export Controls, Patents, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, CIGI, Mauritz Kop, LSI Test, Vanderbilt JETLaw, Quantum Nexus