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 Intellectual Property
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 in Quantum Computing and Market Power: A Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Analysis (Oxford University Press)

Delighted to see our article ‘Intellectual Property in Quantum Computing and Market Power: A Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Analysis’ -co-authored with my talented friends Prof. Mateo Aboy, PhD, SJD, FIT and Prof. Timo Minssen- published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford University Press), the flagship IP peer-reviewed OUP Journal, edited by Prof. Eleonora Rosati. Thanks to the JIPLP team for excellent editorial support! Our article: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/17/8/613/6646536

This piece is the sisterpaper of our Max Planck @ Springer Nature published article titled ‘Mapping the Patent Landscape of Quantum Technologies: Patenting Trends, Innovation and Policy Implications’, which we wrote in parallel. The IIC quantum-patent study can be found here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-022-01209-3. Our teamwork was absolutely gratifying and we hope it will inform strategic, evidence based transatlantic policy making.

IP and Antitrust Law

Please find a short synopsis of our work below:

We are on the verge of a technological revolution associated with quantum technologies, including quantum computing and quantum/artificial intelligence hybrids. Its complexity and global significance are creating potential innovation distortions, which could not have been foreseen when current IP and antitrust systems where developed.

Potential IP Overprotection

Using quantitative methods, we investigated our hypothesis that IP overprotection requires a reform of existing IP regimes for quantum tech, to avoid or repair IP thickets, fragmented exclusionary rights and anticommons concerns, lost opportunity costs, and an unwanted concentration of market power.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, we found that there appear to be (at least so far) no such overprotection problems in the real-world quantum computing field to the extent that their consequences would hinder exponential innovation in this specific branch of applied quantum technology, as more and more quantum patent information enters the public domain.

Patents versus Trade Secrets and State Secrets

However, developments taking place in secrecy, either by trade secrets or state secrets, remains the Achilles heel of our empirical approach, as information about these innovations is not represented by our dataset, and thus cannot be observed, replicated or generalized.

Interplay between IP and Antitrust Law: Open or Closed Innovation Systems

Policy makers should urgently answer questions regarding pushing for open or closed innovation systems including the interplay between IP and antitrust law, taking into account dilemma’s pertaining to equal/equitable access to benefits, risk control, ethics, and overall societal impact. Crucially, intellectual property in quantum technology has a national safety and (cyber)security dimension, often beyond the IP toolkit.

Meer lezen
Mauritz Kop and Mateo Aboy Present QT and Law Research at Lund Quantum Conference

When Lund University convened The Quantum Law Conference in late April 2022, the legal scholarship on quantum computing was still in its infancy. Organized by Valentin Jeutner under the WASP-HS-funded Quantum Law Project, the gathering—formally titled The Legal Dimensions of Quantum Computing—gave an early home to a question that has only grown more urgent: whether intellectual property law is fit for the quantum age. Mauritz Kop, then a TTLF Fellow at Stanford Law School, and Mateo Aboy, Principal Research Scholar at the University of Cambridge, brought a distinctive answer—one built on data rather than intuition.

Theory meets the patent record

Kop's theoretical contribution warned of IP overprotection: a "rainbow" of overlapping rights that could entrench first movers and concentrate market power in a young field. Rather than rest on the argument, the team tested it. Aboy led a patent-landscape study of the quantum computing subfield, asking whether feared "thicket" and "anticommons" effects were actually appearing. The pairing of a normative framework with empirical patent analysis is what made the Lund presentation unusual—and useful to policymakers who need evidence, not assertion.

A counter-intuitive result

The data pointed the other way. The patent system in quantum computing was not, at that stage, generating innovation-choking overprotection; instead, a growing share of quantum patent information was entering the publicly available disclosure record through lapsed and non-granted filings, forming an expanding information commons. The important caveat was secrecy: trade secrets and state secrets ordinarily do not appear in patent datasets, so quantitative mapping must always be read alongside qualitative analysis. The conclusion was measured—IP law works best in concert with competition law, steering between under- and overprotection.

From a conference room toward the journals

The work is not staying in Lund. The theoretical and market-power strand is forthcoming as a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford University Press), and the companion patent-landscape study is forthcoming in IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Springer), with a transatlantic author team spanning Stanford, Cambridge, and CeBIL at the University of Copenhagen. Together they promise one of the earliest evidence-based treatments of quantum-IP policy. It is a quieter companion to Kop's better-known warning that quantum computing carries risks that rival those of artificial intelligence: here the concern is not catastrophe but market structure—who gets to build on quantum technology, and on what terms. The answer the Lund research offers is calibration, not maximalism: predictability enough to attract investment, openness enough to keep the field competitive.

Meer lezen
Mauritz Kop Lecturer AI Regulation and Intellectual Property Law at CEIPI, University of Strasbourg

Strasbourg, France – We are pleased to feature insights from a lecture on "Intellectual Property and Ownership of AI Input and Output Data" delivered by Professor Mauritz Kop at the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg. This session was part of the University Diploma in Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property.

Rights and responsibilities pertaining to AI and data

Professor Kop, a Fellow at Stanford University and a strategic IP lawyer, shared his expertise on the rights and responsibilities pertaining to AI and data, offering both theoretical perspectives and practical tips at the current state of technological and legal development. The lecture aimed to equip attendees with a bird's-eye view of the intertwined key elements of this multidimensional topic.

AI, data governance, and intellectual property law

Professor Kop's session underscored the dynamic interplay between AI advancement, data governance, and intellectual property law. It highlighted the necessity for legal professionals to be "double or triple educated" to navigate this complex field and for ongoing efforts to create legal frameworks that foster responsible innovation while addressing societal and ethical considerations.

The lecture concluded by stressing that AI literacy and awareness, continuous learning, and proactive legal strategies are essential for all stakeholders in the AI ecosystem.

Meer lezen
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
Music Law at the Royal Conservatoire The Hague

Returning to my old flame for 1 day: looking forward to teaching music law at the Royal Conservatoire The Hague tomorrow! https://www.koncon.nl/en/

It's nice not having to speak or write about AI, data or quantum technology for a change... ;)

Teaching music law at the Royal Conservatoire The Hague

I am giving an in person guest lecture to a small group of students at the Amare - Den Haag, and it is live streamed to the rest of the department. The Amare is home to Nederlands Dans Theater (NDT) as well, one of the world’s leading contemporary dance & ballet companies, dedicated to creation, research, innovation and talent development. https://www.ndt.nl/en/

Using self-produced audio fragments and practical examples, we cover 18 music law topics ranging from registering intellectual property rights to strategic contract negotiations. The tracks I prepared are played from my Powerpoint into a phenomenal pair of Bowers & Wilkins monitors, the ultimate sound system. https://www.muziekenrecht.nl/blog/2017/6/music-licensing-in-the-netherlands-movies-games-legal-aspects

Looking back in nostalgia to the cross-disciplinary masterclasses I had the pleasure of teaching in recent years inter alia at Leiden University, Utrecht University and Conservatorium Maastricht. https://www.musicajuridica.nl/blog/2017/5/gastcollege-intellectueel-eigendom-conservatorium-maastricht

CPO Radboud University seminar at Het Concertgebouw Amsterdam

Absolute highlight was the postgraduate CPO Radboud University seminar at Het Concertgebouw Amsterdam on music & law, which included a public domain quiz musically framed by an ad hoc ensemble of Koninklijk Concertgebouworkest musicians featuring the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Maarten Feteris on piano and me (Mauritz Kop) on clarinet es/bes, performing bespoke Mozart, Beethoven and Bach arrangements. https://www.muziekenrecht.nl/blog/2018/cpo-seminar-muziek-recht-concertgebouw-amsterdam

Kudos to the KonCon management for making sure their talented students have firsthand access to vital information about the inner workings of the music & entertainment industry!

Meer lezen
Integrating Bespoke IP Regimes for Quantum Technology into National Security Policy

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
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
Beyond IP Innovation Law: The Bigger Picture

Intellectual property is a powerful driver of innovation—but it is not the only one. In Beyond IP Innovation Law: The Bigger Picture, posted as a preprint and forthcoming in the European Media, IP & IT Law Review (MR-Int), Mauritz Kop argues that a serious innovation policy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution must reach past exclusive rights toward a fuller toolkit: prizes, grants, antitrust, commons-based production, open innovation, and a vital public domain.

Sustainable innovation law beyond IP

The essay frames "sustainable innovation law" as the interface between creativity, technology, society, and law—combining information law, antitrust, consumer protection, and fundamental rights with AI, machine learning, big data, quantum computing, CRISPR-Cas9, and virtual reality. Its test is normative: innovation counts as sustainable only when it is ethical and social, economically beneficial, conducive to well-being, and supportive of the environment. Once IP loses its monopoly on the policy imagination, a longer menu of incentive mechanisms—competitions, subsidies, tort law, market regulation, R&D tax incentives—comes into view, and choosing among them becomes the real task of the lawmaker.

Why AI can do without IP incentives

Applied to artificial intelligence, the argument is pointed: the classical justifications for IP are weak when applied to AI, and AI "can do without IP incentives," with narrow exceptions such as a medical AI system whose costly clinical trials might warrant patents or, equally, public subsidy. Human authorship and inventorship remain the normative anchor, and machine output that crosses an "autonomy threshold" should fall into the public domain under a model Kop calls Res Publicae ex Machina. The essay also presses for broad text-and-data-mining freedom—even an articulated right to process data for machine learning—so that training datasets, a prerequisite for supervised learning, do not become an IP chokepoint. This complements his theoretical and empirical work on quantum computing and intellectual property law.

A horizontal-vertical innovation architecture

Because incentives and risks vary by sector and by technology, the paper proposes a horizontal-vertical design: horizontal core rules for all 4IR technologies, plus vertical, risk-based regimes organized around a "pyramid of criticality" from low risk at the base to existential risk at the top. The calibration is physics-aware—an open posture may suit AI, while quantum technology warrants more ab initio control given its potential anthropogenic risks, a precautionary tilt Kop develops further in his work on ethics in the quantum age. Written against the European Commission's April 2021 draft AI Regulation, the essay reads that proposal as a "North Star" and urges that safety norms, interoperability standards, and the Trustworthy AI doctrine be embedded directly into the design of technology, monitored through life-cycle impact assessments. The bigger picture, in short, is an innovation law built for purpose—not the reflexive extension of twentieth-century IP.

Meer lezen
Quantum Computing and Intellectual Property Law

Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2021

New Stanford University Beyond IP Innovation Law research article: “Quantum Computing and Intellectual Property Law”.

By Mauritz Kop

Citation: Kop, Mauritz, Quantum Computing and Intellectual Property Law (April 8, 2021). Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2021, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp 101-115, February 8, 2022, https://btlj.org/2022/02/quantum-computing-and-intellectual-property-law/

Download the article here: Kop_QC and IP Law BTLJ

Please find a short abstract below:

Intellectual property (IP) rights & the Quantum Computer

What types of intellectual property (IP) rights can be vested in the components of a scalable quantum computer? Are there sufficient market-set innovation incentives for the development and dissemination of quantum software and hardware structures? Or is there a need for open source ecosystems, enrichment of the public domain and even democratization of quantum technology? The article explores possible answers to these tantalizing questions.

IP overprotection leads to exclusive exploitation rights for first movers

The article demonstrates that strategically using a mixture of IP rights to maximize the value of the IP portfolio of the quantum computer’s owner, potentially leads to IP protection in perpetuity. Overlapping IP protection regimes can result in unlimited duration of global exclusive exploitation rights for first movers, being a handful of universities and large corporations. The ensuing IP overprotection in the field of quantum computing leads to an unwanted concentration of market power. Overprotection of information causes market barriers and hinders both healthy competition and industry-specific innovation. In this particular case it slows down progress in an important application area of quantum technology, namely quantum computing.

Fair competition and antitrust laws for quantum technology

In general, our current IP framework is not written with quantum technology in mind. IP should be an exception -limited in time and scope- to the rule that information goods can be used for the common good without restraint. IP law cannot incentivize creation, prevent market failure, fix winner-takes-all effects, eliminate free riding and prohibit predatory market behavior at the same time. To encourage fair competition and correct market skewness, antitrust law is the instrument of choice.

Towards an innovation architecture that mixes freedom and control

The article proposes a solution tailored to the exponential pace of innovation in The Quantum Age, by introducing shorter IP protection durations of 3 to 10 years for Quantum and AI infused creations and inventions. These shorter terms could be made applicable to both the software and the hardware side of things. Clarity about the recommended limited durations of exclusive rights -in combination with compulsory licenses or fixed prized statutory licenses- encourages legal certainty, knowledge dissemination and follow on innovation within the quantum domain. In this light, policy makers should build an innovation architecture that mixes freedom (e.g. access, public domain) and control (e.g. incentive & reward mechanisms).

Creating a thriving global quantum ecosystem

The article concludes that anticipating spectacular advancements in quantum technology, the time is now ripe for governments, research institutions and the markets to prepare regulatory and IP strategies that strike the right balance between safeguarding our fundamental rights & freedoms, our democratic norms & standards, and pursued policy goals that include rapid technology transfer, the free flow of information and the creation of a thriving global quantum ecosystem, whilst encouraging healthy competition and incentivizing sustainable innovation.

Meer lezen
Workshop Juridische Aspecten AI & Data bij TNO - NL AIC Startups & Scaleups TekDelta Event

Op 24 september 2020 gaf Stanford Law School Fellow Mauritz Kop een masterclass over de juridische dimensie van kunstmatige intelligentie en informatie aan de getalenteerde deelnemers van de Werkgroep Startups & Scaleups van de Nederlandse AI Coalitie (NL AIC), in het kantoor van TNO Research in Den Haag. De workshop maakte onderdeel uit van het TekDelta | NL AIC startup accelerator event, met als centraal thema het versnellen en faciliteren van innovatie door het verbinden van startende ondernemingen met bestaande leading organisaties met slagkracht: het samen bouwen aan een succesvol high tech ecosysteem in Nederland.

Masterclass 'Juridische Aspecten van AI & Data’

De 2,5 uur durende masterclass 'Juridische Aspecten van AI & Data' bij TNO verschafte de cursisten duidelijkheid over de regels voor data delen, privacy en gegevensbescherming, alsmede juridisch en economisch eigendom van informatie. We behandelden onderwerpen variërend van de bescherming van intellectueel eigendom op het AI-systeem, de software, hardware en apps, clearance van data tot het anticiperen op de aanstaande AI & Data Governance wetten van de Europese Commissie.

Multidisciplinair Panel voor Verantwoord Data Delen

Dezelfde middag vond er vanuit het TNO gebouw een online seminar plaats speciaal voor startups, onder leiding van Anita Lieverdink, Senior Orchestrator of Innovation at TNO, Directeur van TekDelta en Program Manager van de Werkgroep Startps & Scaleups van de Nederlandse AI Coalitie.

AIRecht managing partner Mr. Kop nam als juridisch expert deel in het panel dat ging over verantwoord data delen. Het was goed om deel te nemen aan dit multidisciplinaire panel en samen met onze collega's oplossingen te verkennen voor het versneld en verantwoord delen van gegevens. Het is cruciaal en urgent om belemmeringen voor de inzet van benevolente AI weg te nemen en organisaties begeleiding te bieden die rechtszekerheid en vertrouwen in de snelle introductie van deze veelbelovende transformatieve technologie aanmoedigt!

Juridische Cursussen van AIRecht

Onze cursussen ‘AI en Recht – Juridische aspecten van AI, Machine Learning en Data’ bieden een compleet overzicht van de juridische facetten van kunstmatige intelligentie, big (structured/labelled en unstructured, raw) data en de verschillende typen machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, deep reinforcement, transfer, federated). De invalshoek is breed: van beschermen idee tot en met marktintroductie van het product. Cursusdoel is het wegnemen van juridische obstakels voor innovatie. Onderwerpen die hierbij aan de orde komen zijn privacywetgeving, het maximaliseren van uw IP-portfolio (intellectueel eigendom), normering, standaardisering (interoperabiliteit) en certificering (CE mark, keurmerken, conformiteit), het stimuleren van internationaal zakendoen, en het realiseren van (training)data delen op basis van EU regelgeving, licenties, toestemmingen en rechtsgeldige contracten. Maatwerk is mogelijk.

De workshops en masterclasses zijn cross-disciplinair en verbinden de ontwikkeling en toepassing van technologie met geldend nationaal en EU recht.

Meer lezen
Shaping the Law of AI: Transatlantic Perspectives

Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, TTLF Working Papers No. 65, Stanford University (2020).

New Stanford innovation policy research: “Shaping the Law of AI: Transatlantic Perspectives”.

Download the article here: Kop_Shaping the Law of AI-Stanford Law

The race for AI dominance

The race for AI dominance is a competition in values, as much as a competition in technology. In light of global power shifts and altering geopolitical relations, it is indispensable for the EU and the U.S to build a transatlantic sustainable innovation ecosystem together, based on both strategic autonomy, mutual economic interests and shared democratic & constitutional values. Discussing available informed policy variations to achieve this ecosystem, will contribute to the establishment of an underlying unified innovation friendly regulatory framework for AI & data. In such a unified framework, the rights and freedoms we cherish, play a central role. Designing joint, flexible governance solutions that can deal with rapidly changing exponential innovation challenges, can assist in bringing back harmony, confidence, competitiveness and resilience to the various areas of the transatlantic markets.

25 AI & data regulatory recommendations

Currently, the European Commission (EC) is drafting its Law of AI. This article gives 25 AI & data regulatory recommendations to the EC, in response to its Inception Impact Assessment on the “Artificial intelligence – ethical and legal requirements” legislative proposal. In addition to a set of fundamental, overarching core AI rules, the article suggests a differentiated industry-specific approach regarding incentives and risks.

European AI legal-ethical framework

Lastly, the article explores how the upcoming European AI legal-ethical framework’s norms, standards, principles and values can be connected to the United States, from a transatlantic, comparative law perspective. When shaping the Law of AI, we should have a clear vision in our minds of the type of society we want, and the things we care so deeply about in the Information Age, at both sides of the Ocean.

Meer lezen