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 in Conference
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
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
Scarcity, Regulation, and the Abundance Society Roundtable at Stanford Law

In 2022, Mauritz Kop had the honor of contributing a chapter to the book project "Scarcity, Regulation, and the Abundance Society," a special volume of Frontiers in Research edited by two leading minds in technology law, Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School and Professor Deven Desai of Georgia Institute of Technology. The project culminates years of research and dialogue, including a memorable and insightful roundtable held at Stanford Law School.

The central inquiry of the project is to explore how our legal and economic institutions, which are fundamentally built on scarcity, should respond as "technologies of abundance" make scarcity a thing of the past in many industries. As new technologies like AI, 3D printing, and synthetic biology democratize and disrupt production, the book examines whether we will try to legally replicate scarcity or reorder our society to focus on things other than scarcity.

The "Abundance and Equality" Chapter Edited by Mark Lemley

His chapter, titled "Abundance and Equality," was edited by Mark Lemley and connects the concepts of good governance and the end of scarcity by unifying equality with technology-driven abundance. The piece introduces the Equal Relative Abundance (ERA) principle—a post-Rawlsian framework for distributive justice designed for an age of abundance.

The ERA principle builds on John Rawls's "difference principle" but integrates desert-based critique, arguing that unequal rewards for contributions (due to hard work, talent, or entrepreneurial spirit) are justified only to the extent that they also improve the position of the least advantaged members of society. The chapter examines how ten key exponential technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution—including AI, quantum technology, and biotechnology—are the primary drivers of this shift from scarcity to abundance. It critically analyzes our existing scarcity-based institutions, particularly property and intellectual property law, and posits that we must begin experimenting with hybrid systems that mix the best of forward-thinking socialist and ethical post-capitalist paradigms, built on a foundation of participatory democracy.

Mauritz Kop Presents Book Chapter at 2022 Stanford Law’s Abundance Roundtable

On April 22, 2022, the project's contributors gathered for a roundtable workshop at Stanford Law School. The event provided a forum for a deeply interdisciplinary group of scholars to present their work and engage in a robust dialogue about the future of our society. The format consisted of short 8-10 minute presentations followed by 20 minutes of discussion, fostering a rich exchange of ideas.

A Convergence of Post-Scarcity Presentations and Discussions

During his session, Kop presented the core arguments from his "Abundance and Equality" chapter, outlining the tension between technology-driven abundance and the persistent reality of inequality for many across the globe. He introduced the ERA principle as a moral and political guide for distributing the benefits and burdens of our increasingly abundant future.

The roundtable featured a breadth of perspectives. Vivek Wadhwa discussed solving humanity's grand challenges, while Funmi Arewa explored the scarcity of opportunity within the digital economy. Zahr Said and Joshua Fairfield tackled the creation of artificial scarcity through intellectual property and the legal status of virtual property in the age of NFTs, respectively. Shane Greenstein of Harvard Business School offered insights on supply chains and the platformization of clothing personalization. This convergence of ideas underscored the complexity of the transition ahead and the need for holistic solutions.

Musical Interlude: A Spontaneous Translation of Ideas

The roundtable was a stimulating intellectual affair, filled with rigorous debate. During lunch break, celebrating the occasion, Mauritz Kop sat down at the piano in the Stanford Faculty Lounge and performed a brief impromptu musical interlude. It was a personal endeavour to translate the abstract and often-dense themes of our discussion—the post-scarcity economy, abundance, equality, and the human condition—into the universal language of music. It was an opportunity for him to share that moment with his colleagues, connecting the analytical with the artistic.

The "Scarcity, Regulation, and the Abundance Society" project is a vital and timely undertaking. The discussions at the Stanford roundtable and the resulting publications provide a critical foundation for reimagining our legal, economic, and social institutions for a new era. These forward-looking conversations are essential for ensuring that the future of technological abundance is one that fosters not new forms of inequality, but greater justice and human flourishing for all.

Meer lezen
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
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
Suzan Slijpen Conference Speaker at the National University of Ireland

Legal Aspects of AI in Healthcare

On 16 August 2019, Suzan Slijpen LL.M. had the honour to speak about the legal aspects of the development and use of artificial intelligence (a disruptive technology) in healthcare, at the AI in Medicine Conference organized by the Irish Association of Physicists in Medicine (IAPM). The conference took place in Galway, at the National University of Ireland (School of Physics, NUI Galway/ OÉ Gaillimh). Suzan is a senior legal consultant at AIRecht.nl, and specializes in eHealth & medical devices, pharmaceutical law, European food law and contract law, from an AI helicopterview. She is also founder and lawyer at boutique law office Slijpen Legal.

Key topics of the Artificial Intelligence in Medicine lecture

Key legal topics that Suzan addressed in her Artificial Intelligence in Medicine lecture:

1. AI & Robotics: Disruptive Technologies: Synergetic effects of 4th Industrial Revolution technologies like robotics, big data, quantum computing, Blockchain, Virtual Reality (VR) and Internet of Things (IoT).

2. eHealth and medical devices: legal classification.

3. Fundamental Rights: Safeguarding of Fundamental Rights in AI applications, Rights of Patients.

4. Ethics and responsible AI: 1791 French Revolution Values, HLEG Concept of Trustworthy AI.

5. Intellectual Property on AI and Health Apps: Licensing your IP.

6. Liability for damages caused by smart robots: who is liable for misdiagnosis by an AI algorithm?

7. Legislation and Jurisprudence.

8. AI Impact Assessment: remove roadblocks for AI.

Legislation and regulations regarding AI in Healthcare

Do you want to know more about legislation and regulations regarding AI in Healthcare, or Legal aspects of disruptive tech in Medicine? Or do you want to organize a workshop or conference yourself and invite us as a speaker or teacher? Then please contact us about the possibilities!

Meer lezen
AI for Independent Law Firms: Mauritz Kop Speaks at The Law Firm Network Annual Conference in Amsterdam

Law firms and AI: Mauritz Kop addressed The Law Firm Network — the international association of independent law firms, founded in 1989 — at its 2021 Annual Conference in Amsterdam, hosted by Wieringa. The subject was the question every managing partner now owns: what does artificial intelligence change about legal work itself, and what must a firm regulate before it adopts the technology?

AI as production technology for legal work

Document review, drafting support and knowledge retrieval put artificial intelligence inside the law firm itself — and with it questions of confidentiality, supervision and liability for machine-assisted work product. Which client data may leave the building when a tool runs in someone else's cloud? Who stands behind a machine-drafted first version, and how is that review evidenced? And when the analysis misses the decisive clause, who carries the claim — vendor, firm or insurer?

The regulatory wave reaching clients

Risk classes, conformity obligations and governance: in the same period the European Commission tabled its April 2021 proposal for what has since become the adopted EU AI Act. Firms advising across borders need a shared vocabulary for the European approach to AI before their clients ask for it — and a risk-based, phased regulation rewards exactly the early gap analysis that independent firms can offer regional clients without global compliance departments.

Why managing partners are the right room

The audience is the leverage: managing partners set technology policy, sign vendor contracts and answer to clients in their own jurisdictions. Their questions are operational — what to pilot first, what to tell the professional-indemnity insurer, how to brief partners who did not grow up with the technology — and a legal frameworks session has to answer them concretely or it is scenery. The article sets out the four-step readiness sequence a mid-sized firm can actually run: inventory, contracts, supervision, client posture.

Networks spread readiness

One session, many jurisdictions: teaching an international assembly of independent firms multiplies through every member — each firm carries the frameworks home to its own bar context, client base and supervisory rules, turning one Amsterdam afternoon into dozens of localized conversations about confidentiality, supervision and AI governance. It is part of a broader teaching practice, from universities to professional associations, including the SandboxAQ lecture and workshop. The law of AI is converging across Europe; its adoption happens one firm, one engagement letter and one procurement decision at a time.

Meer lezen