Should countries be able to treat quantum technology the way they treat fissionable materials—suspending patents and trade-secret enforcement when national security demands it? That is the provocative proposal at the center of Integrating Bespoke IP Regimes for Quantum Technology into National Security Policy, a 2021 Stanford working paper by Mauritz Kop and Mark Brongersma, posted as a preprint. The authors argue that quantum needs innovation-policy mechanisms cut to the physics of the very small, then folded into national security law.
A bespoke regime for a dual-use technology
Quantum, the authors observe, is an early-stage family of technologies—comparable to the transistor in the 1960s—whose dual-use character spans civil benefit and military harm. Because appropriable value lives simultaneously in hardware, software, and trade secrets, a legal regime borrowed wholesale from software or biotech will misfire. The paper surveys a toolkit drawn from adjacent fields—AI, biotechnology, nanotechnology, semiconductors, and nuclear—and argues that intellectual property and antitrust law must work in concert so that quantum does not deepen existing inequalities. Their guiding stance is twofold and deliberately paradoxical: treat quantum as genuinely unprecedented, but also learn from the history of adjacent technologies. This work runs alongside the market-power analysis Kop would later develop in intellectual property in quantum computing and market power, carrying the inquiry from competition theory into the harder terrain of national security law.
Pro-quantum antitrust and democratized access
Concretely, the authors weigh pro-quantum antitrust enforcement, the waiving and pledging of IP including compulsory licenses, and the democratization of essential technology. They confront the tension honestly: leading quantum startups have relied on IP protection—especially trade secrets—to raise capital, yet enclosing the foundational concepts of quantum computation and communication risks entrenching winner-takes-all dynamics against a community consensus on the right to equal access. Beyond IP, they catalog prizes, subsidies, state funding, and education as further levers for incentivizing progress.
A new TRIPS security exception
The paper's signature proposal is a new Article 73(b)(iv) security exception to the TRIPS Agreement, giving states the strategic option to exclude quantum technologies from IP protection—mirroring how the existing exception treats fissionable materials, and capable of serving either disclosure or secrecy. Situating quantum within a longer pendulum of open and closed innovation, the authors warn against a convergence of overstretched IP rights and progress made in secret, and close with a call for further multidisciplinary research. The result is a structured agenda for designing quantum innovation policy attuned to both its physics and its geopolitics, complementing the call for a strategic technology alliance among democratic countries.
Meer lezen