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

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 IPSC
Mauritz Kop Presents Oxford JIPLP Article on Quantum Computing, IP and Market Power at IPSC 2022, Stanford Law School
Mauritz Kop Presents Oxford JIPLP Article on Quantum Computing, IP and Market Power at IPSC 2022, Stanford Law School

IPSC 2022 at Stanford: at the first in-person Intellectual Property Scholars Conference after two virtual years (August 11–12, 2022), Mauritz Kop presented his Oxford JIPLP article Intellectual property in quantum computing and market power: a theoretical discussion and empirical analysis, co-authored with Mateo Aboy and Timo Minssen.

When IP stops doing its job

The theory: intellectual property exists to incentivize innovation, but excessive proliferation of exclusive rights over a foundational technology produces anticommons effects — overlapping thickets that raise transaction costs, deter follow-on research and concentrate first-mover market power. Quantum computing, built on decades of publicly funded science, is exactly where that risk bites hardest.

The patent data behind the argument

The empirics: the article analyzes the quantum-computing patent landscape — who files, where portfolios cluster, and what that implies for market structure in a field whose hardware, algorithms and error-correction methods may all carry exclusive rights. Theory says when proliferation harms innovation; the data say where quantum technology stands today.

A transatlantic collaboration, a Stanford homecoming

Kop, Aboy and Minssen connect European and American IP scholarship on quantum computing; for Kop the venue completed a circle, having spent early 2022 as visiting scholar at Stanford Law School. The presentation put the market-power findings before the scholars best placed to attack the methodology — which is what the IPSC works-in-progress format exists to do. And after two virtual editions, the 22nd IPSC's return to a physical Stanford conference room restored the corridor conversations that turn a panel question into a coauthorship.

Standards: the other half of ownership

Beyond patents, quantum interoperability standards will run on disclosure and licensing commitments from the very portfolio holders the article tracks. Whether those commitments are negotiated early, FRAND-style, or after positions harden will shape access to the technology as surely as any patent dispute — and the article's empirical map is groundwork for getting that negotiation right.

Third station of a research arc

From AI's data inputs (IPSC 2020) via waive-or-pledge quantum IP (IPSC 2021) to ownership structure and market power (2022): the sequence tracks a research line moving from machine learning's raw material to quantum computing's ownership structure, each stage workshopped in public before publication. That line later grew into an institutional one — see Stanford University launches the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology. If early patent concentration hardens into durable market power, access to the field's foundational capabilities narrows before the technology matures; making that risk empirically discussable, rather than rhetorical, is the article's lasting contribution.

Meer lezen
Intellectual Property, Academics, ConferenceHenry QuentirIPSC, Stanford Law School, quantum computing, intellectual property, market power, JIPLP
Mauritz Kop Presents Quantum: Waive or Pledge IP at IPSC 2021, Cardozo Law School
Mauritz Kop Presents Quantum: Waive or Pledge IP at IPSC 2021, Cardozo Law School

IPSC 2021 at Cardozo: on August 4, 2021, Mauritz Kop presented Quantum: Waive or Pledge IP at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference, hosted online by Cardozo Law School — putting the intellectual-property architecture of quantum technology before the IP academy while the field's patent landscape was still forming.

A real policy dilemma in three words

Waive or pledge: if quantum computing's basic building blocks rest on decades of publicly funded research, should foundational exclusive rights be waived for defined categories — or kept but pledged, FRAND-style, against assertion? The presentation developed both instruments and their hybrids, from quantum-specific patent pledges to compulsory licensing and shorter, innovation-cycle-calibrated protection terms — an IP architecture for a technology whose patent landscape was consolidating faster than its governance.

Physics that unsettles doctrine

The no-cloning theorem forbids perfectly copying an arbitrary unknown quantum state — friction at the foundations for IP regimes predicated on the act of duplication. A law built around copying meets quantum states that cannot, even in principle, be copied; the legal-ethical groundwork for that collision is laid in Establishing a Legal-Ethical Framework for Quantum Technology.

From workshop draft to Berkeley Technology Law Journal

The critiqued draft matured into the Berkeley Technology Law Journal article mapping patents, trade secrets and copyright onto quantum hardware, algorithms and software — and arguing where bespoke instruments serve innovation better than one-size-fits-all exclusivity. The IPSC room's questions — incentives, successor liability, category definition — made the published version sturdier. That is what the works-in-progress format is for: short presentations, dense Q&A, no proceedings, everything in service of the draft.

Patent scholars meet information-law scholars

Cardozo's host program tilts the IPSC room toward information-law questions — data, platforms, access — so a waive-or-pledge proposal had to satisfy both the incentive logic of the patent scholars and the access logic of the information-law side. A proposal that survives both audiences is closer to policy-ready than one bred in either camp alone.

Arriving early, on purpose

In August 2021 quantum technology was still mostly a physics story in the legal academy. Presenting a worked-out IP architecture then put waive-or-pledge on the scholarly agenda while policy could still shape the landscape rather than litigate it afterward. The instrument-matching logic — pledge where the ecosystem polices itself, waive where concentration would gate basic science, keep compulsory licensing in reserve as the credible threat that keeps the voluntary instruments honest — has only gained relevance as the quantum patent landscape has consolidated since.

Meer lezen
Intellectual Property, Academics, ConferenceHenry QuentirIPSC, Cardozo Law, quantum computing, intellectual property, patent pledges
Mauritz Kop Presents Machine Learning & EU Data Sharing Practices at IPSC 2020, Stanford Law School
Mauritz Kop Presents Machine Learning & EU Data Sharing Practices at IPSC 2020, Stanford Law School

IPSC 2020 at Stanford: Mauritz Kop presented Machine Learning & EU Data Sharing Practices at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference — the works-in-progress forum where IP scholarship is stress-tested before journals see it. The 2020 edition, hosted by Stanford Law School, ran as virtual panels from July 15 through August 5 in the first pandemic summer.

Training data under four regimes at once

Machine learning is hungry, and in Europe its raw material sits under copyright, database rights, trade secrets and the GDPR simultaneously. The paper mapped that intersection — including the text-and-data-mining exceptions of the DSM directive — and asked which data-sharing arrangements actually let lawful European AI development proceed at scale.

An argument for coordination

Where exclusive rights and data-protection rules overlap without coordination, they tax exactly the data flows the EU's own artificial intelligence strategy depends on. That modernization argument, workshopped before a predominantly American IP audience with a different copyright baseline and fair-use culture, had to hold up under comparative fire — which is precisely what the IPSC format is for.

Part of the Stanford research agenda

The presentation belonged to Kop's research line at the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, which he had joined earlier that year — see Mauritz Kop becomes TTLF Fellow at Stanford University. The paper is preserved in the permanent Stanford RQT collection at the Stanford Law Library, and its data-protection companion piece appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology's digest — two halves of one question about Europe's machine-learning data rules.

A format built for critique

Short presentations, dense Q&A, no published proceedings: IPSC exists purely to make drafts better before journals see them. For interdisciplinary work spanning artificial intelligence, data governance and IP doctrine, an audience of doctrinalists, economists and technologists probes each weak point in turn — and a European paper before an American room must hold up under a different copyright baseline and fair-use culture besides.

Why it still matters

The training-data questions posed in that 2020 draft — who may train on what, and on which terms — have since moved to the center of AI regulation on both sides of the Atlantic. Opt-out patchworks under the text-and-data-mining exceptions, the GDPR's reach into model pipelines, the competitive pull of jurisdictions with cleaner data rules: each was on the table at that virtual Stanford panel before it reached the regulators' agenda. The workshop critique of that summer became part of the foundation the later debates built on — which is exactly what a works-in-progress conference is supposed to produce.

Meer lezen
Intellectual Property, Academics, ConferenceHenry QuentirIPSC, Stanford Law School, machine learning, intellectual property, data sharing, TDM