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 met de tag EU AI Act
Quantum-AI vraagt om een dubbel technisch dossier
Quantum-AI vraagt om een dubbel technisch dossier

Waarom dit nu telt

Quantum-AI-systemen zijn niet langer alleen een onderzoeksmotief. Zodra een AI-dienst een quantumprocessor, quantumsimulator, quantum sensor of quantum-geïnspireerde optimalisatielaag gebruikt, verandert de documentatievraag. De koper wil niet alleen weten welke data, modelkeuzes en toezichtmaatregelen bij het AI-systeem horen. Hij wil ook weten wat het quantumdeel precies doet, onder welke meetcondities het is getest, en of de prestatieclaim reproduceerbaar is buiten de demonstratieomgeving.

Het dubbele dossier

De EU AI Act maakt die vraag scherper. Voor hoog-risico AI-systemen draait technische documentatie om risicobeheer, logging, nauwkeurigheid, robuustheid, cybersecurity en menselijk toezicht. Een quantumcomponent ontsnapt daar niet aan. Zij voegt een tweede bewijsvlak toe: hardware of simulator, ruis, kalibratie, meetherhaling, foutmarge, backend-wijzigingen en de grens tussen quantum-geïnspireerde code en echt quantumgebruik. Zonder dat tweede vlak kan een systeem juridisch netjes lijken terwijl een beslissende technische laag onleesbaar blijft.

De actuele onderzoekslijnen laten zien waarom dit geen theoretische luxe is. Quantumalgoritmen voor thermal-state preparation, quantum-versterkte federated learning en industriële quantumroadmaps brengen AI, sensoren, privacy en hardwareprestaties dichter bij elkaar. Voor Europese procurement betekent dat: vraag niet alleen of een leverancier AI Act-ready is, maar welk bewijs hij geeft voor de quantumlaag. De kern is technische documentatie voor quantum-AI: welke rol speelt het quantumdeel, welke prestatie is geclaimd, wie valideert die claim en wat gebeurt er na een hardware- of modelwijziging? Juist die laatste vraag hoort al in de aanbesteding, omdat een backendwissel of herkalibratie de betrouwbaarheid van het hele systeem kan raken.

Contractuele vertaling

Een bruikbaar dossier heeft vijf velden: rolafbakening, meet- en testbewijs, data- en privacyrouting, wijzigingsbeheer en contractuele verantwoordelijkheid. Die velden halen de magie uit de verkooptaal zonder de technologie kleiner te maken dan zij is. AIRecht vertaalt zulke claims naar due diligence, compliance en contracttaal: niet als brede strategiepresentatie, maar als leesbaar dossier voor legal, procurement, security en productmanagement. Juist bij frontiertechnologie is sober bewijswerk vaak de beste bescherming tegen overdreven claims.

Meer lezen
AI Recht, Quantum Governance, ComplianceMauritz KopQuantum-AI, EU AI Act, technische documentatie, quantum governance, procurement, compliance
De cryptografische inventaris wordt een bestuursdossier
De cryptografische inventaris wordt een bestuursdossier

Waarom dit nu bestuurlijk wordt

Post-quantum cryptografie is geen abstract laboratoriumonderwerp meer voor ondernemingen die AI-, cloud- en datadiensten inkopen. De Amerikaanse overheid heeft de migratie naar quantumveilige cryptografie omgezet in uitvoeringswerk, NIST werkt aan aanpassingen voor PIV-identiteitsstandaarden en leveranciers zullen steeds vaker moeten uitleggen welke algoritmen, certificaten en sleutelketens zij gebruiken. Voor Nederlandse organisaties is de praktische vraag welke afhankelijkheden zij delen met dezelfde cloud-, identity- en AI-infrastructuur, en welke gegevens nog gevoelig zijn wanneer quantumcapaciteit verder opschuift.

Wat de inventaris zichtbaar maakt

Dit artikel behandelt post-quantum cryptografie als bestuursdossier. De kern is een inventaris die bestuur, legal, security en inkoop samen kunnen lezen: welke gegevens blijven lang gevoelig, welke systemen beschermen AI-logs of modelgewichten, welke contracten noemen migratie of crypto-agility, en welke leverancier kan zijn routekaart bewijzen? Die inventaris is juridisch relevant omdat veel moderne complianceplichten draaien om aantoonbaarheid. Een AI-governanceprogramma dat technisch dossier, logging en risicobeheer serieus neemt, moet ook weten of het bewijs zelf cryptografisch houdbaar blijft.

De post legt een brug tussen NIST-standaarden, Amerikaanse PQC-uitvoering, IBM's quantumroadmap en bestaande AIRecht-thema's rond quantum governance en due diligence. De verrassend nuchtere conclusie is dat de eerste goede maatregel geen futuristische voorspelling is. Zij is een lijst: algoritmen, certificaten, systemen, leveranciers, bewaartermijnen, eigenaars en ontbrekende antwoorden. Zodra die lijst bestaat, kan het bestuur prioriteren zonder te vervallen in quantumhype of schijnzekerheid. Dat maakt het onderwerp bruikbaar voor contractonderhandelingen, auditcommissies en technische teams die anders langs elkaar heen praten.

Van leveranciersvraag naar dossier

Voor AIRecht-lezers ligt de commerciële waarde in een compacte review van AI- en quantumgovernance: een vaste briefing die cryptografische inventaris, leveranciersclausules, AI-bewijsstukken en bestuursvragen naast elkaar legt. Zo krijgt post-quantum migratie een controleerbare plek binnen AI Act-, cyber-, privacy- en contractgovernance. De bijdrage eindigt met concrete leveranciersvragen en een klein bestuurskader waarmee organisaties kunnen beginnen zonder hun hele securityprogramma opnieuw uit te vinden, juist bij lopende cloud- en AI-inkoop en nieuwe leveranciersreviews.

Meer lezen
AI Recht, Quantum Governance, ComplianceMauritz Koppost-quantum cryptografie, AI governance, quantum governance, cyber security, EU AI Act, bestuursdossier
Columbia Law Publishes 'Towards a European Quantum Act' Study by Mauritz Kop
Columbia Law Publishes 'Towards a European Quantum Act' Study by Mauritz Kop

In a landmark academic contribution, Columbia Law School’s prestigious Columbia Journal of European Law (CJEL) is publishing a comprehensive study by Mauritz Kop, a leading scholar in the field of quantum technology governance. Titled "Towards a European Quantum Act: A Two-Pillar Framework for Regulation and Innovation," the paper, published in Volume 31, Issue 1 (Fall 2025), presents a forward-looking and robust framework for the European Union to navigate the complexities of the quantum age. This timely publication in a top ranked journal guided by the intellectual stewardship of renowned Columbia Law professors Anu Bradford and George Bermann, is set to significantly influence the burgeoning transatlantic dialogue on the future of quantum technology.

The full citation for the paper is: Mauritz Kop – Towards a European Quantum Act: A Two-Pillar Framework for Regulation and Innovation (Sept 9, 2025), Volume 31, Issue No. 1, Columbia Journal of European Law, Columbia Law School (2025), final edition forthcoming. Pre-print versions are available on SSRN, arXiv, ResearchGate, the Website of the European Commission, and AIRecht.

The Columbia Journal of European Law: A Bastion of Transatlantic Legal Scholarship

Founded in 1994, the Columbia Journal of European Law has established itself as a leading academic publication dedicated to the study of European law from a transatlantic perspective. Its mission is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between scholars, practitioners, and policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. The journal’s history is deeply intertwined with the development of the European Union and the evolving relationship between the EU and the United States. It has consistently published groundbreaking scholarship on a wide range of topics, from competition law and trade to human rights and constitutional law.

The journal's ranking among the top international and European law journals is a testament to its quality and influence. CJEL is currently the single most cited European law journal in the world. It is widely recognized for its rigorous academic standards and its commitment to publishing innovative and policy-relevant research. The journal’s association with Columbia Law School, one of the world’s leading law schools, further enhances its prestige. Columbia Law, located on Amsterdam Avenue in Morningside Heights, Manhattan, New York City, is an Ivy League institution consistantly ranked 3rd in the country - its name carries weight. You can find more information about the journal on its official website: https://cjel.law.columbia.edu/ and its Scholastica page: https://columbia-journal-of-european-law.scholasticahq.com/. For more on the journal's history, the Wikipedia page is a useful resource, and updates can be found on their LinkedIn profile.

CJEL Guided by Star Professors Anu Bradford and George Bermann

The intellectual rigor and policy relevance of Kop's study are a reflection of the Journal’s guidance and mentorship of two of Columbia Law School's most distinguished scholars: Anu Bradford and George Bermann.

Professor Bradford, the Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization, is a world-renowned expert on the "Brussels Effect," a term she coined to describe the European Union's unilateral power to regulate global markets. Her work has profoundly shaped our understanding of the EU's role in the world and its ability to set global standards for technology and other industries. Her insights into the EU’s regulatory power are clearly reflected in Kop’s proposal for a European Quantum Act.

Professor George Bermann is the Walter Gellhorn Professor of Law and the Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law at Columbia Law School. A leading authority on European law, international arbitration, and comparative law, Professor Bermann has been instrumental in shaping the field of European law studies in the United States. His deep understanding of the intricacies of EU law and governance provides a solid foundation for Kop’s ambitious legislative proposal. The combined expertise of these two scholars has undoubtedly enriched the paper, ensuring its legal and political feasibility.

"Towards a European Quantum Act": A Two-Pillar Framework

Kop's paper argues that the European Union has a unique opportunity to shape the global governance of quantum technologies. He proposes a comprehensive "European Quantum Act" based on a two-pillar framework:

Pillar 1: Agile, NLF-Style Regulation: This pillar focuses on creating a flexible and adaptive regulatory framework, similar to the EU’s New Legislative Framework (NLF) for products. It would establish a risk-based approach to regulating quantum technologies, with stricter rules for high-risk applications and more flexibility for low-risk ones. This approach, Kop argues, would allow for innovation to flourish while ensuring that fundamental rights and safety are protected. A key element of this pillar is the "standards-first" philosophy, which prioritizes the development of technical standards as a primary mechanism for embedding democratic values into the very architecture of quantum technologies.

Pillar 2: Ambitious, Chips Act-Style Industrial Policy: This pillar calls for a proactive and ambitious industrial policy to support the development of a competitive and resilient European quantum ecosystem. Drawing inspiration from the U.S. and EU Chips Acts, Kop proposes a range of measures, including funding for research and development, support for startups and SMEs, and the creation of a European quantum infrastructure. This pillar aims to ensure that Europe can compete with the United States and China in the global quantum race.

A Standards-First Approach to Secure a Democratic Future

A central tenet of Kop's proposal is the "standards-first" approach. He argues that technical standards are not merely technical tools but are "vessels for values." By proactively shaping the standards for quantum technologies, the EU can embed its democratic values, such as privacy, fairness, and accountability, into the core of the technology. This approach would not only ensure that quantum technologies are developed and used in a responsible manner but would also give the EU a competitive advantage in the global market for trustworthy quantum systems.

This concept builds upon a recent study published in the prestigious journal Science, senior-authored by Kop. The study, titled "Quantum technology governance: A standards-first approach," was first-authored by Mateo Aboy of Cambridge University, with co-authorship from Urs Gasser, a leading scholar at the Technical University of Munich and Harvard University, and I. Glenn Cohen, Vice Dean of Harvard Law School and Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics. This foundational work, which can be accessed here at Science, provides the rigorous academic underpinnings for leveraging standards as a primary tool for responsible technology governance.

The paper, initiated by the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, suggests the creation of a Quantum Technology Quality Management System (QT-QMS), which would be developed in partnership with international bodies like ISO/IEC and IEEE. This system would provide a certifiable CE mark for quantum systems, signaling their compliance with EU standards and values.

Meer lezen
Academics, Europees recht, Columbia Law School, Stanford RQTMauritz KopEuropean Quantum Act, Quantum Europe Strategy, Columbia Law School, Columbia Journal of European Law (CJEL), Two-Pillar Framework, EU AI Act, CHIPS Act, Nuclear, Governance, Regulation, Innovation, Dual-Use, Intellectual Property Law, Export Controls, Semicon, Q-Day, national security, Industrial Policy, Qubits for Peace, Standards-First, Democratic values, DARPA, Deterrence, International Quantum Agency, EU Office Of Quantum Technology Assessment, Critical Mineral Supply Chains, Anu Bradford, George Bermann, Senator Mark Warner, President Ursula von der Leyen, Tracey Forrest, CIGI, Science, Stanford RQT, Mateo Aboy, Urs Gasser, I. Glenn Cohen, Mauritz Kop
EU AI Act Compliance for Global Enterprises: The Daiki Solution for Mandatory AI Governance
EU AI Act Compliance for Global Enterprises: The Daiki Solution for Mandatory AI Governance

The European Union's AI Act has crossed the line from proposal to binding law, and its phased rollout is now an active clock rather than a distant horizon. Daiki, the AI and quantum governance company co-founded by Mauritz Kop, has published an account of what mandatory AI governance demands of global enterprises—and how an integrated, standards-based platform can convert that obligation into a strategic advantage.

A calendar that has already started

The Act entered into force on August 1, 2024. The prohibition on unacceptable-risk practices took effect in February 2025; obligations for general-purpose AI models began in August 2025; and full application—conformity assessments, CE marking, EU-database registration, post-market monitoring for high-risk systems—arrives on August 2, 2026, with a final grace period for regulated-product components running to 2027. Because the Act binds any provider whose systems reach the EU market or whose outputs are used within it, its reach is extraterritorial: a firm headquartered in New York or Singapore is squarely within scope, and penalties of up to €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover make non-compliance a board-level risk.

The pyramid of criticality

The Act's organizing idea is a risk-based pyramid: unacceptable-risk practices are banned; high-risk systems—reaching common enterprise uses in hiring, credit scoring, and critical infrastructure—carry the heaviest lifecycle obligations; limited-risk systems owe transparency; and minimal-risk applications attract no new mandates. The Daiki solution operationalizes that structure, classifying each system through a rules engine aligned with the Act's definitions and Annex III, then triggering a workflow proportionate to its tier, with every action logged to an auditable evidence trail. Its architecture is anchored in ISO/IEC 42001, bridged to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and bounded throughout by deliberate human oversight—mirroring the Act's own Article 14.

A risk-based reading with a documented lineage

The post's central reading—that a risk-based regime rewards organizations able to prove their governance—has a clear history in Kop's scholarship. As Mauritz Kop's record of work shows, his 2021 analysis of the EU AI Act anticipated the four-tier architecture that is now law, and the same logic carries across the Atlantic to California's compute-threshold approach for frontier models. For general counsel and compliance leaders, the practical takeaway is consistent: build one coherent, standards-based governance system now—rather than a reactive checklist per statute—and the era of enforcement will reward exactly the discipline the era of voluntary principles merely recommended. Mandatory AI governance, as the post observes, is here to stay; the enterprises that treat it as design rather than damage control will be the trusted artificial intelligence leaders of the regulated decade ahead.

Meer lezen
Artificial Intelligence, European Law, GovernanceMauritz KopMauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Policy, Governance, Standards, Daiki, EU AI Act, AI Governance, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, Brussels Effect, Risk-Based Regulation, Frontier AI
Music Law and Artificial Intelligence: From Cloned Artists to AI-Generated Works
Music Law and Artificial Intelligence: From Cloned Artists to AI-Generated Works

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the music industry is sparking a revolution, profoundly changing how music is created. This development raises complex legal questions concerning AI and copyright, including related rights. How can we protect the creative rights of artists and composers while simultaneously allowing room for technological innovation? In this comprehensive yet accessible legal overview, we explore key issues regarding AI and music. These include whether AI can legally train on copyrighted materials without consent, TDM exceptions, how various rights organizations (such as Buma/Stemra and Sena) approach AI, the status of AI-generated musical works, the threshold of human creativity required, protection against AI voice cloning via privacy laws and moral rights, contractual implications, new obligations under the EU AI Act, differences between European and American law, and ongoing lawsuits. This article is tailored for artists, composers, music publishers, labels, voice actors, producers, and AI companies seeking clarity on their legal standing.

AI Training on Protected Music and Video Materials: Legal Framework and Debate

Can an AI model in the Netherlands and the EU train on copyrighted material (such as music or video) without permission from the rights holders? Generally, using protected material beyond private use or citation requires permission. Scraping or using data for AI training without permission is typically considered infringement unless a specific legal exception applies.

Buma/Stemra’s Opt-Out Policy

In the Netherlands, Buma/Stemra explicitly uses its opt-out rights, requiring prior consent for TDM on its repertoire, thus ensuring fair compensation for composers and lyricists.

EU AI Act: Transparency Obligations and System Monitoring

The EU AI Act, effective from August 2025, introduces important transparency requirements, obliging generative AI model developers to:

  1. Disclose training data used, including copyrighted music or texts.

  2. Maintain policies ensuring compliance with EU copyright law.

  3. Respect explicit opt-out signals from rights holders during training.

The Act doesn't prohibit using protected material for training outright but enforces transparency and compliance through oversight and penalties.

Composition, Lyrics, and Master Recordings: Different Rights Regimes

Music rights in the Netherlands broadly split into:

A. Copyright: Protects compositions and lyrics, managed by organizations like Buma/Stemra.

B. Neighboring Rights: Protect recordings and performances, managed by Sena.

AI-Generated Compositions and Lyrics: Completely AI-generated works often fail to meet traditional copyright criteria, as human creativity is essential.

Neighboring Rights: It remains uncertain whether AI-generated performances and recordings attract neighboring rights, as these typically rely on human involvement.

Copyright Status of AI-Generated Music

In the U.S., fully AI-generated works explicitly do not receive copyright protection. While Europe hasn't clarified explicitly, the prevailing legal view aligns with this stance—AI-generated works likely fall into the public domain unless there's significant human creativity involved.

Hybrid Creations: Music combining human and AI input may qualify for copyright protection depending on the human creative contribution's significance.

AI Voice Cloning: Personality Rights and Privacy

AI voice cloning technology poses challenges regarding personal rights and privacy. Artists may invoke:

  1. Privacy rights under EU law (Article 8 ECHR).

  2. Personality rights.

  3. Potential trademark and image rights analogously.

The EU AI Act mandates transparency in AI-generated content, aiming to mitigate unauthorized use and deepfake concerns.

Music Contracts in the AI Era

Existing music contracts require updates addressing AI-specific matters, including (1) Explicit licensing terms for AI training; (2) Ownership clarity of AI-generated content; and (3) Liability assignment for copyright infringements involving AI.

Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Rights—Be Prepared

The intersection of AI and music law presents both opportunities and challenges. Stakeholders should proactively:

  1. Clearly define rights in AI-generated music contractually and update existing music contracts.

  2. Specify permissions (licenses) and restrictions (opt-out) regarding AI training explicitly.

  3. Seek specialized music & AI legal advice to navigate evolving regulations.

By strategically addressing these issues, artists, companies, and AI developers can legally and effectively harness AI innovations, maintaining both creative and commercial control.

Meer lezen
Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Machine Learning, Licenties, Naburige rechten, Privacywetgeving, Entertainment en Kunst, EthicsMauritz KopMusic Law, AI, Privacy, Copyrights, Neighbouring Rights, AI Generated Works, Voice-Cloning, Buma/Stemra, Sena, Opt-out, Music Contracts, EU AI Act, Licensing, Privacy Laws, Intellectual Property, Mauritz Kop
The US ISO 42001 Standards-Centric Approach to AI Governance: Compliance, Trust, and Innovation (Daiki Repost)
The US ISO 42001 Standards-Centric Approach to AI Governance: Compliance, Trust, and Innovation (Daiki Repost)

AIRecht reposts, in full and with permission, a Daiki essay by Mauritz Kop, Co-Founder, on why the United States is converging on a standards-centric model of artificial intelligence governance—and why ISO/IEC 42001 has become its anchor. The repost is presented as published on May 13, 2025, with its original spellings, figures, and references intact.

A standards-first answer to a fragmented regime

The American approach to AI is, by design, light on binding federal statute and heavy on voluntary, risk-based guidance: the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, sector-specific direction from the FTC, EEOC, and FDA, and a patchwork of state laws. Into that fragmentation steps ISO/IEC 42001, the world's first international standard for AI Management Systems, published in December 2023. The essay's argument is that a single, certifiable management system can do what a stack of statute-shaped checklists cannot—give an organization one coherent governance posture that travels across jurisdictions.

The transatlantic bridge

The stakes are clearest for U.S. companies selling into Europe. ISO 42001 certification is not the same as EU AI Act compliance, but the two overlap heavily on risk management, data governance, transparency, documentation, and human oversight—precisely the obligations the Act imposes on high-risk systems. The repost frames the standard as a "common language" that lets a U.S. firm demonstrate diligence to European regulators and partners without building a separate compliance machine for each market. It is the same standards-first logic Kop and colleagues have argued for in quantum governance, where international standards substitute for legislation that has not yet caught up to the technology.

From paperwork to governance asset

The closing move is strategic rather than procedural. Under an anticipated period of U.S. federal deregulation, the essay contends, a globally recognized standard offers stability that domestic political cycles cannot: a baseline of good governance that holds regardless of which executive orders survive. The Daiki method then operationalizes that posture through six integrated components—an AI system registry, an EU AI Act toolkit, an ISO 42001 implementation framework, ISO 27001 data-security integration, MDR/ISO 13485 support for medical AI, and a responsible generative-AI framework—so overlapping requirements are managed once, not many times. The throughline connects to Daiki's wider body of work on operationalizing regulation, including its EU AI Act compliance solution and its quantum-governance recipe.

Why repost it here

For boards, general counsel, and AI program leads, the practical message is that the era of principles is giving way to an era of evidence: organizations will increasingly be asked to prove their governance, not merely assert it. Reposting the essay in full preserves Kop's argument verbatim while placing it alongside AIRecht's running coverage of Mauritz Kop's work at the intersection of AI, standards, and responsible technology governance.

Meer lezen
Artificial Intelligence, Standardization, GovernanceMauritz KopMauritz Kop, AI, Governance, Standards, Regulation, Policy, Healthcare, Daiki, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, AI Governance, Standards-Centric, Repost, ISO 27001, Trustworthy AI
Harvard Petrie-Flom publishes EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms
Harvard Petrie-Flom publishes EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms

Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center has published EU and US Regulatory Challenges Facing AI Health Care Innovator Firms on its Bill of Health blog—an op-ed co-written by lead author Suzan Slijpen, Mauritz Kop (Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology), and senior author I. Glenn Cohen, who directs the Center. It examines why firms building artificial intelligence for medicine face such a tangled compliance map, and what a better one might look like.

Two regulatory philosophies, one transatlantic market

The piece sets Europe's cross-sectoral instinct against America's sectoral one. An AI medical product entering the EU must answer to the Medical Device Regulation, the GDPR, and a sweeping digital rulebook that now includes the EU AI Act and the coming European Health Data Space. In the United States, by contrast, coverage is patchy by design: HIPAA reaches only certain entities and data, and the FDA regulates medical AI only where it fits an existing category. Each model has genuine merits and genuine blind spots, and a firm selling on both shores must satisfy both at once.

Where the law strains hardest

The authors are clearest on the cases that resist tidy rules. Adaptive algorithms that keep learning after deployment make it hard to say when a model has changed enough to need fresh review—an area where the FDA's 2023 predetermined-change-control guidance points a constructive way forward. Generative AI overtook the EU AI Act mid-negotiation, unsettling how foundation models are treated under a rulebook drafted before they arrived. And at the material frontier sit quantum- and AI-driven devices, with their export controls, fragile supply chains, dual-use questions, and intellectual-property and security concerns—the bridge from this op-ed to Kop's broader work on the quantum technology governance frontier. The lesson the authors draw is procedural as much as substantive: regulators must understand the tempo of the technology they govern, or risk writing rules that are obsolete before they bind.

Toward a workable middle ground

Rather than crowning a winner, the authors propose a mixed horizontal-vertical approach: keep the precautionary care for patient safety, keep the permissionless capacity to innovate, and tailor the result to the economic realities of health care—from clinical-trial costs to market licenses. Regulation that is sensible, practical, and sector-specific, they argue, serves innovators and patients alike; anything less is rendered ineffective fast. Readers tracking Kop's longer arc on responsible technology can also follow his AIRecht scholar profile, where the through-line from AI in medicine to the law and ethics of the quantum age is laid out across a decade of work.

Meer lezen
Healthcare, Artificial Intelligence, HarvardMauritz KopMauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Healthcare, Policy, Governance, Petrie-Flom, Bill of Health, I. Glenn Cohen, Suzan Slijpen, EU AI Act, Medical Devices, FDA, HIPAA, GDPR, Quantum Healthcare
CQ Researcher Interviews Mauritz Kop on Regulating Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computing
CQ Researcher Interviews Mauritz Kop on Regulating Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computing

In late 2022, journalist Sarah Glazer interviewed Mauritz Kop—Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (Stanford RQT)—for a CQ Researcher report, The Future of Artificial Intelligence — Can it be successfully regulated?, published under the lineage of Congressional Quarterly. Her questions ranged across the whole governance agenda: the regulatory gaps for artificial intelligence in the United States and Europe, the reach of the EU AI Act, the timing and skepticism around quantum computing, China and defense, and whether a machine could ever be sentient. Kop's written responses offer a compact statement of his position just before the field's law caught up with its technology.

The diagnosis: rules without teeth

Kop's opening line to Glazer was unsparing: "On both sides of the Atlantic, AI regulation is virtually nonexistent at the moment." The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, he explained, would change that—and not only in Europe. Because it is a Regulation rather than a Directive, it binds all Member States directly; and through the Brussels effect it sets a de facto global standard, exporting a risk-tiered, conformity-and-certification approach to AI well beyond the EU's borders.

Quantum is not "twenty years away"

The interview's sharpest thread was Kop's rebuttal to the familiar claim that quantum computing is perpetually two decades off. The framing, he argued, confuses engineering milestones with physical reality. Adversaries can harvest encrypted data now and decrypt it later once a capable machine exists, so the migration clock is already running. The physics is unforgiving: because qubits exploit superposition and entanglement, a quantum register explores an exponentially large state space, and an algorithm like Shor's turns that into the ability to break the assumptions behind today's public-key encryption. The argument echoes the warning in the Foreign Policy op-ed that drew Glazer to him in the first place.

Govern the systems we have

On machine sentience, Kop kept capability and consciousness apart: quantum effects make hard computations tractable, but they do not manufacture an inner life, and nothing in the physics confers rights on a model. The serious work is to govern the AI and quantum systems already in deployment—an interdisciplinary, standards-first program Kop has carried into venues from the U.S. Senate to his scholar profile. Read in 2026, after the EU AI Act's adoption and NIST's finalization of its first three post-quantum cryptography standards, the 2022 conversation looks less like commentary than like an early reading of developments now settled in law.

Meer lezen
Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computing, PolicyMauritz KopMauritz Kop, AI, Regulation, Policy, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, CQ Researcher, Congressional Quarterly, EU AI Act, Sarah Glazer, Brussels Effect, Post-Quantum Cryptography
Morning Brew and Dark Reading Interview Mauritz Kop on Quantum Ethics and the EU AI Act
Morning Brew and Dark Reading Interview Mauritz Kop on Quantum Ethics and the EU AI Act

Within the same fortnight in June 2022, two technology outlets sought out Mauritz Kop on the two governance questions that run through his scholarship: the ethics of quantum computing, and Europe's proposed AI Act. Emerging Tech Brew, Morning Brew's technology vertical, featured him in "As quantum computing advances, who's thinking about ethics?"; Dark Reading featured him in "EU Debates AI Act to Protect Human Rights, Define High-Risk Uses." In both, Kop is identified as a Transatlantic Technology Law Forum fellow at Stanford University and a strategic intellectual property lawyer at AIRecht.

Quantum ethics: act before the technology locks in

To Emerging Tech Brew, Kop's central message was about timing. "We were obviously too late for AI, and now, [for quantum computing], we still have the chance to be in time before the technology gets locked in," he said—invoking the Collingridge dilemma, in which a technology is easiest to steer precisely when its risks are hardest to see. The urgency is rooted in physics: superposition and entanglement give quantum machines a categorically different kind of power, including the eventual ability to break the public-key cryptography that protects today's communications—one reason the World Economic Forum's quantum governance principles name "non-maleficence" as a core value. Kop paired a call for transparency about present capability with a warning about a "Pandora's Box of unknown risks," and likened the field's duty of care to the Hippocratic Oath—"in this case, our society is the patient."

The EU AI Act: a product-safety regime for AI

To Dark Reading, Kop framed the EU AI Act as a product-safety regime that closes the gaps left by an otherwise unregulated field. "The risks are too high for nonbinding self-regulation by companies alone," he said, describing the act as "a human centric legal-ethical framework that intends to safeguard and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms from violations of these rights and freedoms by algorithms and smart machines." High-risk classification, he explained, scales obligations to danger—stricter rules for AI in healthcare and defense than for AI in tourism—through a dynamic, evolving list.

One conviction, two technologies

Both interviews express a single idea: that governance works best when embedded early, by design, and grounded in human rights rather than retrofitted after harm. Kop did not minimize the compliance burden on startups, nor the legal uncertainty that surrounds early regulation; his answer is "Trustworthy AI by Design," built in from the first line of code, and regulatory sandboxes that give responsible innovation room to breathe. More on the author's work is available via his scholar profile.

Meer lezen
Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Quantum TechnologyMauritz KopMauritz Kop, Ethics, AI, Regulation, Policy, Human Rights, Quantum Governance, EU AI Act, Quantum Ethics, Morning Brew, Dark Reading, Collingridge dilemma, High-Risk AI, Product Safety
Mauritz Kop calls for a Quantum Governance Act at the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law
Mauritz Kop calls for a Quantum Governance Act at the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law

Much enjoyed giving a lecture titled ‘Quantum-ELSPI: A Call for a Quantum Governance Act’ on Thursday June 9, 2022 at the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law. This was an internal CeBiL event that took place before The Quantum Future symposium, organized by the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and its newly established Committee for Quantum Information and Quantum Computing, together with the Niels Bohr Institute’s Quantum Life Centre.

EU Quantum Governance Act

With its own Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in which physical phenomena must be observed and measured to exist, the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law was the perfect place to propose an outline for a novel Quantum Governance Act on a European level, fostering open innovation while putting targeted, technology and industry specific risk based controls in place. The EU Quantum Act should jointly optimize advancing quantum technology (investment and innovation) with safeguaring quantum technology, society and humankind (guardrails, standards, values, IP protection and national security). For example, it could contain a product safety regime as found in the EU AI Act, combined with pro-innovation mechanisms as found in the US CHIPS Act. In addition, I connected regulating quantum to regulating general purpose technologies (GPT) like artificial intelligence (AI), but also to nanotechnology, biotechnology, semiconductors, and last not least to managing dual use fissionable materials such as nuclear isotopes and nuclear weapons, utilizing export and intellectual property controls.

The Law of Quantum: Quantum Regulatory Frameworks

The Quantum & Law lecture gave an overview of work done over the past 3 years on quantum regulatory frameworks, incentive and rewards systems, competition law, beyond intellectual property innovation law, ethics, national security policy, standardization, technology impact assessment, benchmarking and certification published or forthcoming in high impact journals at both sides of the Atlantic. My talk ended with discussing the latest research findings pertaining to the Law of Quantum, and Quantum-ELSPI academic disciplines. Thanks to the participants for their inspiring questions and comments!

Panel Debate about the Quantum Future at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences

The brilliant lectures on atoms, photons, qubits, the nature of quantum information, the history of quantum physics, and current research into quantum computer paradigms -including combatting decoherence on both software and hardware levels- at The Quantum Future symposium where highly enjoyable. This fascinating program ended with a panel debate on how quantum technology will change our society, at the beautiful building of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, in attendance of fellow jurists Nicholson Price II, Louise C. Druedahl, Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci, and Agnieszka Radziwon.

Surfing the Waves of the Second Quantum Revolution

The panel debate at the Academy -superbly moderated by Nanna Bonde Thylstrup- gave a true, almost symptomatic picture of the various stakeholders' viewpoints and positions. But we are learning to speak each other's language better and better, a crucial and exciting step when it comes to balancing the societal impact of our mystical family of quantum technologies. Surfing the waves of the second quantum revolution requires building bridges between disciplines, beyond traditional research silos. Bringing together the humanities, social and natural sciences to spur sustainable innovation driven by a golden triangle of academia, government and industry is essential.

Thank you to Professor Timo Minssen and his team at CeBiL for the kind invite. https://jura.ku.dk/cebil/

Meer lezen
Ethics, Quantum Computing, Quantum ELSPI, Quantum TechnologyMauritz KopQuantum Act, Quantum Governance, Quantum-ELSPI, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Quantum Computing, EU AI Act, US CHIPS Act, Quantum & Law, Law & Ethics of Quantum, Quantum Regulatory Frameworks, Stanford Law School, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, Timo Minssen, Mauritz Kop
Montreal World Summit AI 2022 Features Mauritz Kop Keynote on EU AI Act
Montreal World Summit AI 2022 Features Mauritz Kop Keynote on EU AI Act

Montreal, Canada – May 4, 2022 – Today, at the prestigious World Summit AI Americas held at the Palais des congrès, Mauritz Kop, TTLF Fellow at Stanford Law School and Director of AIRecht, provided a concise overview of the proposed EU Artificial Intelligence Act. He was a featured panellist in a critical discussion titled, "Does the proposed EU Artificial Intelligence Act provide a regulatory framework for AI that should be adopted globally?". The summit, themed "AI with impact: for crisis response and business continuity and recovery," brings together leading AI brains and enterprise leaders.

Mr. Kop joined fellow distinguished panellists Professor Gillian Hadfield from the University of Toronto and José-Marie Griffiths, President of Dakota State University and former NSCAI Commissioner. The session was moderated by Meredith Broadbent, Former Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission and Senior Adviser at CSIS.

Novel Legal Framework for AI

During the panel, Mr. Kop outlined the main points of the novel legal framework for AI presented by the European Commission on April 21, 2021. He explained that the EU AI Act sets out horizontal rules applicable to all industries for the development, commodification, and use of AI-driven products, services, and systems within the EU's territory.

A core component of the Act is its sophisticated ‘product safety framework’, which is constructed around four distinct risk categories in a "pyramid of criticality". This risk-based approach dictates that AI applications with unacceptable risks are banned, while lighter legal regimes apply to low-risk applications. As the risk level increases, so do the stringency of the rules, ranging from non-binding self-regulation and impact assessments for lower-risk systems to potentially heavy, externally audited compliance requirements throughout the lifecycle of high-risk AI systems.

EU "Trustworthy AI" Paradigm

Mr. Kop emphasized that the Act aims to codify the high standards of the EU’s "trustworthy AI" paradigm, which mandates that AI systems must be legal, ethical, and technically robust, all while respecting democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law. A crucial aspect highlighted was the requirement for market entrance and certification of High-Risk AI Systems through a mandatory CE-marking procedure. This pre-market conformity regime also extends to the machine learning training, testing, and validation datasets used by these systems. Only after a declaration of conformity is signed and the CE marking is affixed can these high-risk systems enter and be traded on the European markets.

Enforcement will be managed by a new Union-level body, the European Artificial Intelligence Board (EAIB), supported by national supervisors in each Member State, similar to the GDPR's oversight structure. Mr. Kop noted the seriousness of non-compliance, with potential fines reaching up to 6% of a company's global turnover.

Balancing regulation with innovation, the EU AI Act also introduces legal sandboxes. These are designed to provide AI developers with "breathing room" to test new inventions and foster a flourishing AI ecosystem in Europe.

Meer lezen
Artificial Intelligence, ConferenceMauritz KopWorld Summit AI, EU AI Act, Mauritz Kop, Gillian Hadfield, José-Marie Griffiths, Meredith Broadbent, Sarah Porter
Mauritz Kop Consults Senator Mark Warner on AI & Quantum Technology Policy
Mauritz Kop Consults Senator Mark Warner on AI & Quantum Technology Policy

Washington D.C., January 4, 2022—As the United States Congress grapples with the complex challenges of regulating artificial intelligence and quantum technology, leading policymakers are seeking expert guidance to inform a robust and forward-thinking national strategy. On January 4, 2022, Mauritz Kop, a distinguished scholar in the field of technology law and governance, was consulted by the legal team of U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) to provide strategic insights on both AI and quantum technology policy.

This consultation highlights the growing recognition in Washington of the need for deep, interdisciplinary expertise to navigate the geopolitical, economic, and security dimensions of these transformative technologies. Senator Warner's team reached out to Kop based on his influential scholarship, including his extensive work at Stanford on the EU AI Act and the need for a strategic democratic tech alliance, his advisory role for the European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen on the AI Act and Data Act, and his foundational article in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology proposing a comprehensive legal-ethical framework for quantum technology.

Senator Mark Warner: A Leader on Technology and National Security

Senator Mark Warner's engagement on these issues is both significant and timely. As the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he is at the forefront of addressing the national security implications of emerging technologies. His work involves overseeing the U.S. Intelligence Community and ensuring it is equipped to handle the threats and opportunities of the 21st century, where technological competition with nations like China is a central concern.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has a broad mandate that includes analyzing intelligence on the technological capabilities of foreign powers and assessing the vulnerabilities of U.S. critical infrastructure. Senator Warner has been a vocal proponent of developing a national strategy for AI and quantum to maintain the United States' competitive edge and to ensure that these technologies are developed and deployed in a manner consistent with democratic values. This consultation with Mauritz Kop reflects the Senator's commitment to drawing on leading academic research to shape sound, bipartisan policy.

AI Policy: A Transatlantic, Risk-Based Approach that Lets Innovation Breathe

A key focus of the consultation was Kop's analysis of the European Union's AI Act. His Stanford publications argue for a balanced, pro-innovation regulatory model that can serve as a blueprint for international cooperation. Good governance and sensible legislation should incentivize desired behavior and simultaneously create breathing room for sustainable, beneficial innovation to flourish.

Quantum Governance: Establishing a Legal-Ethical Framework

The discussion also delved into the governance of quantum technology, drawing on Kop's seminal work in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology. Recognizing that quantum is rapidly moving from the theoretical to the practical, he stressed the urgency of establishing a legal-ethical framework before the technology is widely deployed and locked-in.

The consultation with Senator Warner's office represents a critical intersection of academic scholarship and high-level policymaking. As the United States charts its course in the era of AI and quantum, the insights provided by experts like Mauritz Kop are invaluable in ensuring that the nation's strategy is not only competitive but also responsible, ethical, and firmly rooted in democratic principles.

Meer lezen
Academics, Government, Governance, Geopolitics, American Law, Artificial Intelligence, Data processing, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Quantum Computing, Research, TTLFMauritz KopSenator Mark Warner, AI Policy, Quantum Technology Strategy, EU AI Act, Data Act, Risks, Democracy, National Security, Intellectual Property, Ursula Von Der Leyen, Stanford Law, Harvard, Yale, Mauritz Kop, Bipartisan Tech Policy, Economic Safety, Geopolitics