Berichten met de tag Stanford RQT

Quantum Law Goes Mainstream: Our Stanford RQT Scholarship in Forbes, MIT Sloan, Yahoo Finance, Foreign Policy, The Quantum Insider, and Fortune

At the frontier of quantum & AI — from breakthrough to strategy. For the boards, general counsel, and founders deciding the quantum decade: a guide to the responsible-quantum-technology research behind the headlines — from the foundational Berkeley paper on quantum IP to a Nature Physics framework, a Harvard medical-ethics doctrine, and a Los Alamos supply-chain dashboard — and where the world's leading outlets picked it up.

The Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology

Research from the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (2023–2025), founded and directed by Mauritz Kop — also founder of AIRecht and Quentir — has been featured, cited, or authored across Foreign Policy, Fortune, Yahoo Finance, MIT Sloan Management Review, the Forbes Technology Council, and, three separate times, The Quantum Insider. Published at the summit of the scientific literature — Science and Nature Physics — and built on the quantum-IP trilogy that runs from the Berkeley Technology Law Journal through the Max Planck patent-landscape study to Oxford's market-power analysis.

Quantum Governance, IP, and Strategy

Quantum is now a governance, IP, and strategy problem as much as a physics problem — and it is arriving now, in algorithms, devices, and materials. This piece maps the coverage, the scholarship behind it, and what it means for your organisation: from the 10 Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation and the SEA framework to quantum patent strategy, post-quantum cryptography migration, and dual-use compliance.

The fastest way to see where you stand is not a meeting — it is your own paperwork: run your AI and ICT contracts through the 24/7 self-service AIRecht Contract Scanner and get a structured report in minutes.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, AcademicsMauritz Kop10 juli 2026responsible quantum technology, quantum law, quantum intellectual property, Stanford RQT, media

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 Quentir28 mei 2026Mauritz 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

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 Kop5 mei 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Standards, Policy, IDC, PeerScape, Post-Quantum Cryptography, QT-QMS, Quantum Computing, Risk Management

BioLawLaPaLooZa: Mauritz Kop on Hippocratic Quantum and the End of Stable Records at Stanford Law School

At BioLawLaPaLooZa, the annual law-and-biosciences conference convened at Stanford Law School by Henry T. "Hank" Greely and co-hosted with the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Mauritz Kop delivered a talk that fused two strands of his recent work: the biomedical-ethics argument of his Harvard-published Hippocratic Quantum project and the security lens of his NATO Strategic Communications advisory work. It was his third appearance at the gathering, which builds on his earlier BioLawLaPaLooZa remarks.

The past is not yet stable

Kop's organizing line was that "the past is not yet stable." Rather than treating the quantum threat as a future event, he argued that today's authenticated, confidential records are contingent on a cryptographic transition still under way: adversaries can harvest encrypted data now and decrypt it once a Shor-capable machine factors the large integers beneath RSA. Confidentiality, in this reading, must be defended retroactively as well as prospectively—making the migration to post-quantum cryptography, for hospitals and biobanks, a clinical duty rather than an IT preference. The point reframes a familiar threat model: the danger is not only what a future machine will decrypt, but what is being copied and stored today against that day.

Four classical principles, recomputed

The talk recast the four principles of biomedical ethics—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—for a quantum register. Quantum does not replace them, Kop said; it changes what applying them requires. Autonomy comes to demand data sovereignty and a credible right not to know as quantum-AI systems build finer probabilistic patient models. Dual-use simulators that design therapeutics can also lower the barrier to designing pathogens, which is where his LSI test—least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving—supports tiered disclosure over blanket secrecy. And the justice problem is a widening one: the quantum divide, he warned, may prove steeper than the digital divide.

The X-Ray City and a constitution for medicine

Widening the lens, Kop described civic-scale quantum gravimetric and magnetic sensors moving from the laboratory toward infrastructure pilots—able, from public rights-of-way, to resolve subsurface and interior spaces, and so to reach into the privacy of the home. He calls this prospect the X-Ray City, and said he had told NATO it needs a Hippocratic Quantum posture of its own. He closed with a "quantum constitution for medicine" in four standards of care: quantum-safe encryption, sovereignty over patient digital twins, human oversight in the loop, and tiered disclosure under the LSI test. The premise the room had not heard before, he suggested, was simply that the past itself is not yet settled.

Meer lezen

Academics, Healthcare, Stanford RQTHenry Quentir1 mei 2026Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Healthcare, Ethics, Quantum Governance, Quantum Technology, Stanford Law School, Hippocratic Quantum, BioLawLapalooza, Hank Greely, Post-Quantum Cryptography, LSI Test, Quantum-AI, Petrie-Flom Center

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 Quentir27 april 2026Stanford RQT, National Security, Geopolitics, Export Controls, supply chains, CIGI, Quantum Governance, Mauritz Kop, Cybersecurity, Critical Minerals, Niobium, QCCM Dashboard, Los Alamos National Laboratory

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 Quentir9 april 2026Intellectual Property, National Security, Dual-Use, Export Controls, Patents, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, CIGI, Mauritz Kop, LSI Test, Vanderbilt JETLaw, Quantum Nexus

StateScoop Interviews Mauritz Kop About Ohio House Bill 650 on Quantum Technology

When a statehouse starts asking serious questions about quantum computing, something has shifted. StateScoop—the Washington outlet that covers state and local government technology—has interviewed Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, about Ohio House Bill 650: legislation, passed unanimously by the Ohio House and now before the Senate, that would create a Frontier Technologies and Quantum Commission to study quantum computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and robotics, and report recommendations to the General Assembly by the end of 2026.

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

The commission would seat members of both chambers and draw on outside experts—an institutional answer to a structural problem. Emerging technologies now advance faster than traditional legislative cycles, and the gap between innovation and regulation widens every session a legislature waits. Ohio's answer is to build standing expertise before quantum systems are woven into procurement, infrastructure, and security frameworks, rather than legislating after the fact. It is, as Kop puts it in the interview, the role of state commissions to serve as "an essential laboratory for anticipatory governance."

Three messages from the interview

Kop's advice to Ohio distills into three propositions. First, anticipatory governance works: states that organize knowledge early write better rules later. Second, post-quantum cryptography migration is "really a country wide effort"—state agencies hold health records, tax data, and election infrastructure whose confidentiality must outlive the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum machines, and migration timelines are measured in years, not budget cycles. Third, ethics embedded smartly in regulation does not slow innovation—it propels it, by giving industry predictable rules and the public reasons to trust what is being built.

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

Ohio is not moving alone. California, Texas, New Mexico, and Maryland have each launched quantum initiatives of their own, and the federal picture is evolving in parallel—terrain Kop knows from advising the U.S. Department of State on quantum technology and foreign policy strategy. The emerging pattern is federalism doing what it does best: fifty laboratories testing governance designs for a technology whose economic and security consequences will be national. The full StateScoop article includes Kop's remarks on commissions, cryptography, and the innovation case for ethics—and this post walks through its key arguments.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyHenry Quentir19 maart 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Policy, Regulation, Stanford RQT, Quantum Technology, Standards, StateScoop, Ohio House Bill 650, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, State Legislation

Mauritz Kop Consults Amgen on Quantum-Biomedical Discovery

Invited by Howard Chang—the physician-scientist who led a renowned genomics laboratory at Stanford and now serves as Senior Vice President, Global Research, and Chief Scientific Officer at Amgen—Mauritz Kop consulted with Amgen's research organization on quantum-biomedical discovery: a disciplined exchange of ideas about where quantum methods can genuinely improve the way medicines are found.

An invitation from Amgen's chief scientist

The conversation paired deep biology with quantum strategy and governance. Its anchor was the Hippocratic Quantum approach Kop published at Harvard: accelerate discovery with quantum and quantum-classical methods, but under guardrails medicine itself would prescribe—validation, privacy, security, and patient trust from the first experiment. The same translational seriousness ran through the responsible-quantum lecture and workshop Kop gave at SandboxAQ.

Six use cases, one discipline

From computational chemistry for de novo discovery and lead optimization, through protein structure and selected omics analytics, metabolism and toxicity simulation, blood-brain-barrier hypotheses validated in organoid and lab-on-a-chip systems, operational optimization, and a watchlist for quantum neural networks—every candidate use case answers to the same rule: benchmark hard against strong classical baselines from day one, and let the evidence decide which pilots earn the next dollar.

Guardrails before hype

The strategy's quiet half is security and governance: a post-quantum cryptography roadmap for long-lived patient and research data, vendor diversification across qubit modalities, trade-secret and IP protection, and standards alignment. What the exchange was about, in the end, is decision quality—smarter discovery pipelines, better-protected data, and medicines that reach patients sooner.

Meer lezen

Healthcare, Quantum Technology, MedicineHenry Quentir3 maart 2026Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Quantum Governance, Healthcare, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Amgen, Hippocratic Quantum, Quantum Medicine, Drug Discovery, Biomedical Discovery

Mauritz Kop Principal Investigator of MINDS Quantum Strategy Grant at CIGI

Waterloo, February 18, 2026—The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) has awarded Mauritz Kop a new leadership role as Principal Investigator (incoming) of a MINDS Targeted Engagement Grant on Quantum Strategy. The grant advances a central proposition of his recent work: quantum technologies are no longer best understood as a narrow scientific frontier or a conventional innovation file. They have become a strategic domain in which law, industrial policy, intellectual property, defense planning, and geopolitical competition now converge.

That convergence matters because quantum capability is being built in an era of systemic rivalry, supply-chain vulnerability, and technological coercion. In that environment, democratic states cannot afford to treat quantum merely as a research ecosystem problem. They must govern it as part of a broader strategy for safeguarding the democratic industrial commons: the shared base of talent, infrastructure, know-how, trusted supply chains, standards, and institutions on which long-run security, prosperity, and coalition advantage depend.

What MINDS in Defence and Security Is and Why This Grant Fits

The MINDS program—Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security—is a Canadian Department of National Defence initiative designed to strengthen evidence-based defense policy thinking and foster the next generation of defense and security experts. Its Targeted Engagement Grants provide non-recurring support for projects such as workshops, roundtables, research, and publications, and they are assessed primarily against the annual Defence Policy Challenges.

The current 2025-2026 MINDS challenge set is especially well aligned with the subject matter of this grant. The official challenge framework emphasizes several critical priorities: securing Canada’s sovereignty and continental defense posture; attracting advanced-technology talent across the defense sector; and strengthening the defense industrial base through resilient supply chains and dual-use technologies such as quantum and artificial intelligence. Furthermore, the framework addresses the pressures of strategic competition—including adversarial exploitation of vulnerabilities—and the accelerating adoption of pan-domain, emerging technologies where interoperability, trust, and responsible governance must be preserved.

Strategic Leadership and Human Capital

Kop’s fellowship at CIGI has centered on the governance of transformative technologies, especially quantum technology, AI, dual-use export controls, national security, and intellectual property. The new grant builds directly on that portfolio, but with a more operational mandate. As incoming Principal Investigator, his role will be to provide the project’s strategic and intellectual leadership: conceptualizing the workshop, defining the central themes and policy questions, structuring the panels for direct relevance to Canadian defense audiences, chairing the main event, moderating key expert sessions, identifying high-level contributors, and guiding the project’s analytical outputs.

The Quantum Nexus Paper Behind the Grant

The grant builds on Kop’s recent paper, The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security: An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons, now available on arXiv.

In that paper, he argues that quantum technologies have moved from laboratory structures to the geopolitical stage, and that democratic states therefore need a governance model that is neither naively open nor reflexively protectionist. The paper's contribution is an implementable coalition playbook, offering empirically anchored criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails - including red zone domains where denial is the default - to avoid both over-securitization and under-securitization. Properly applied, LSI reduces the risk of a self-defeating hard decoupling from China while establishing standards-first interoperability as a stabilizing eigenstate of the international order and enabling RQT by design to shape trusted adoption pathways beyond the coalition, including in the majority world.

Meer lezen

An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons

Mauritz Kop—Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and a CIGI Senior Fellow—has posted as a preprint a book-length Article that reframes quantum strategy as a problem of disciplined openness. The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security argues that democracies should pursue neither closure nor laissez-faire, but "security-sufficient openness," screened through a single administrable test. It is a strategic companion to the cryptographic argument set out in "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age."

Deterrence by denial for democratic resilience

The Article's organizing idea is responsible quantum technology reframed as values-based deterrence by denial: a legal, ethical, and institutional control plane that protects the shared "quantum industrial commons"—talent, tooling, standards, supply chains, and the research base—against authoritarian appropriation. Deterrence by denial aims to make hostile gains too slow or costly to be worthwhile, rather than relying on the threat of retaliation, and the Article presents it as the least escalatory way to preserve crisis stability. It situates the analysis against an approaching strategic "event horizon," citing the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's call for a "Quantum First by 2030" posture and parallel White House initiatives to secure critical inputs.

The LSI test

The central contribution is the LSI test, which asks whether any given control is least-trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, and innovation-preserving. The test is built to avoid two failure modes: over-securitization, which chills publication, standards leadership, and venture formation, and under-securitization, which leaks crown-jewel capabilities that are slow to reacquire. LSI is applied across a "pillarized" quantum stack—computing, sensing, simulation, networking, communication, quantum-AI hybrids, and enabling materials—and to its upstream dependencies in patent and trade-secret doctrine, government-funded IP and data rights, export controls, investment screening, and cryptographic baselines including post-quantum cryptography and crypto-agility. The framing borrows from physics with care: because the relevant systems are genuinely probabilistic, the Article uses the "Eight Worlds" scenario method to keep governance robust across divergent futures.

A coalition playbook against a "Silicon Curtain"

Rather than stop at theory, the Article assembles an implementable coalition playbook—administrable criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails, including red-zone domains where denial is the default—and integrates instruments of economic statecraft such as a strategic critical-minerals reserve and a Quantum Criticality Index. Its closing warning is that mishandled securitization could raise a self-defeating "Silicon Curtain" between allied innovators; the constructive alternative is standards-first interoperability treated as a stabilizing feature of the international order. The work has been posted as a preprint on arXiv and is announced on AIRecht in the Nexus paper announcement.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, GeopoliticsHenry Quentir12 februari 2026Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Intellectual Property, National Security, Stanford RQT, Geopolitics, Standards, Policy, LSI test, Deterrence by Denial, Quantum Industrial Commons, CIGI, Export Controls, Post-Quantum Cryptography, arXiv

The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security

Some moments in technology policy demand a text that turns scattered anxieties into administrable law. For the collision of quantum technology, intellectual property, and national security, Mauritz Kop's book-length Article on arXiv makes that move: The Nexus of Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, and National Security: An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons—a work that reads today's probabilistic security environment like a wavefunction of plausible futures, and asks which policy choices will collapse it into an outcome democracies can live with.

The claim: security-sufficient openness

The Article's central claim is that the United States and its allies should pursue security-sufficient openness, operationalized through an LSI test: every intervention—an export control, an outbound-investment screen, a patent-secrecy order—must be the least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving measure available, whether the actor is a state or a private firm. Between total openness, which hands strategic capabilities to rivals mobilized under military-civil fusion, and total restriction, which strangles the science, the test stakes out the only ground that is defensible in both senses of the word.

Red zones, enclaves, and economic statecraft

What makes the work more than a framework essay is its machinery. The Article delivers an implementable coalition playbook: empirically anchored criteria, templates, and differentiated guardrails—including red-zone domains where denial is the default—plus secure closed-loop enclaves where allied researchers can pursue high-sensitivity R&D without choosing between secrecy and collaboration. The instruments of economic statecraft that democracies have increasingly been deploying are integrated here into a single disciplined doctrine, with the U.S. assessments calling for a Quantum First posture by 2030 supplying the deadline.

What is at stake

The Article names the twin failure modes precisely. Over-securitize, and democracies erect a self-defeating Silicon Curtain—suppressing publication, standards participation, and startup formation until the alliance walls itself off from its own innovation. Under-securitize, and strategically meaningful capabilities in computing, sensing, and cryptanalysis diffuse to adversaries faster than open societies can respond. Threading that needle is the geostrategic design problem of the decade—the same problem Kop works on as an expert at the Eric Schmidt-backed von Neumann Commission on quantum-AI geostrategy. Properly applied, the LSI test secures the quantum industrial commons without suffocating the scientific commons beneath it—and extends trusted adoption pathways to the majority world. This post walks through the Article's argument, its playbook, and what both mean for the lawyers and legislators who will write the quantum statutes of the late 2020s.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Intellectual Property, GeopoliticsHenry Quentir11 februari 2026Mauritz Kop, Intellectual Property, National Security, Quantum Governance, Geopolitics, Stanford RQT, Trade Secrets, Export Controls, Dual-Use, LSI Test, Quantum Industrial Commons, arXiv, Economic Statecraft

Responsible Peer Review at Scholarly Journals: Guiding Manuscripts to Their Best Form

Behind every published paper stands an unnamed reader who helped make it publishable. That reader is a peer reviewer—unpaid, anonymous, and usually invisible. Mauritz Kop, Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, has done that work across a strikingly broad set of fields, and this essay treats peer review as a craft worth describing: how to do it well, and where he does it.

Steward, not gatekeeper

Everything follows from how a reviewer understands the role. Read as a turnstile, review collapses into fault-finding; read as care for the scholarly record, it turns into the question of what a paper needs to reach its strongest form. Saying no remains part of the job when nothing can rescue a manuscript—but repair, not rejection, is the starting assumption. The method that supports this is unglamorous: read once generously to grasp intent, again critically to test claim against method and evidence, and a third time as the non-specialist who has to follow it. What the author then receives should be a guide, not a grade—precise, proportionate, and respectful of the labor behind the work.

What interdisciplinary review demands

The journals map the range of the practice—npj Digital Medicine, Ethics and Information Technology, Minds and Machines (Springer Nature), NanoEthics (Springer Nature), Intellectual Property Quarterly (Thomson Reuters), the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford University Press), and Quantum Science and Technology (IOP Publishing). Evidence means something different in each: a trial result, a philosophical argument, a reading of statute, and a physics experiment are not validated the same way, so the reviewer adapts to the discipline at hand. Physics makes the point sharp. A quantum protocol that assumes an unknown state can be copied violates the no-cloning theorem; a scheme that ignores decoherence, or forgets that measurement perturbs the very state it reads, has not survived contact with the physics—a rigor that also animates Kop's Quantum-ELSPI work on the legal and ethical implications of quantum technology.

Confidentiality and recognition

You will find no war stories here about particular submissions, and the silence is deliberate. Confidentiality is not an accessory to peer review but its precondition: only because reviewers say nothing can authors hand unfinished work to a stranger. Such discretion makes the labor hard to see, and harder to honor. The exception came in 2022, when IOP Publishing granted Kop its Trusted Reviewer Certification, a competency-based recognition of reviewers who demonstrate a high standard of review—a mark of rigor and usefulness rather than sheer output. Practiced this way, peer review is less a barrier than the quiet mechanism that keeps the scholarly record trustworthy.

Meer lezen

Academics, Research, ScholarshipMauritz Kop25 december 2025Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Ethics, Standards, Peer Review, Scholarly Publishing, Research Integrity, IOP Trusted Reviewer, Quantum Science and Technology, Interdisciplinary Research

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

The Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology

Quantum Governance, IP, and Strategy

The first intergovernmental quantum standard

A visible lineage, not a formal citation

Why anticipation is the right posture

What comes next

A buyer-side discipline, not a research curiosity

The two-pronged risk

Governance engineered as an operating system

Part of a widening practitioner record

The past is not yet stable

Four classical principles, recomputed

The X-Ray City and a constitution for medicine

Why a dashboard, and why now

Two use cases, one lesson

Materials policy as quantum statecraft

A test with three prongs

Patents and export controls, one system

From a six-paragraph essay to a coalition playbook

A statehouse turns to the quantum age

Three messages from the interview

Why state-level quantum policy matters now

An invitation from Amgen's chief scientist

Six use cases, one discipline

Guardrails before hype

What MINDS in Defence and Security Is and Why This Grant Fits

Strategic Leadership and Human Capital

The Quantum Nexus Paper Behind the Grant

Deterrence by denial for democratic resilience

The LSI test

A coalition playbook against a "Silicon Curtain"

The claim: security-sufficient openness

Red zones, enclaves, and economic statecraft

What is at stake

Steward, not gatekeeper

What interdisciplinary review demands

Confidentiality and recognition

Juridische diensten en projecten in Nederland en daarbuiten