调控量子时代的变革性技术:知识产权、标准化与可持续创新

Mauritz Kop
{"title":"调控量子时代的变革性技术:知识产权、标准化与可持续创新","authors":"Mauritz Kop","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3653544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The behavior of nature at the smallest scale can be strange and counterintuitive. In addition to unique physical characteristics, quantum technology has many legal aspects. In this article, we first explain what quantum technology entails. Next, we discuss implementation and areas of application, including quantum computing, quantum sensing and the quantum internet. Through an interdisciplinary lens, we then focus on intellectual property (‘IP’), standardization, ethical, legal &amp; social aspects (‘ELSA’) as well as horizontal &amp; industry-specific regulation of this transformative technology.<br><br>The Quantum Age raises many legal questions. For example, which existing legislation applies to quantum technology? What types of 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? Should we create global quantum safety, security and interoperability standards and make them mandatory in each area of application? In what way can quantum technology enhance artificial intelligence (‘AI’) that is legal, ethical and technically robust? <br><br>The article argues that the pervasiveness of quantum technology asks for a holistic view on a regulatory framework, that balances the interests of stakeholders and that of society at large. It demands for an agile legislative system that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and societal needs. <br><br>How can policy makers realize these objectives and regulate quantum computing, quantum sensing and the quantum internet in a socially responsible manner? Regulation that addresses risks in a proportional manner, whilst optimizing the benefits of this cutting edge technology? Without hindering sustainable innovation, including the apportionment of rights, responsibilities and duties of care? What are the effects of standardization and certification on innovation, intellectual property, competition and market-entrance of quantum-startups?<br><br>Moreover, which culturally sensitive ethical issues play a role in these regulations? Would it be a good first step to link the governance of quantum &amp; AI hybrids to the Trustworthy AI principles? Do quantum’s different physical properties call for additional core rules? Is it wise to embed our democratic values into the architecture of quantum systems, by way of Trustworthy Quantum Technology by Design? The article explores possible answers to these tantalizing questions.<br><br>Particles and energy at the subatomic level do not follow the same rules as the objects we can detect around us in our everyday lives. In addition to universal, overarching guiding principles of Trustworthy &amp; Responsible Quantum Technology that are in line with the unique physical characteristics of quantum mechanics, the article advocates a vertical, differentiated industry-specific legislative approach regarding innovation incentives (based on the innovation policy pluralism toolkit), externalities and risks (based on the pyramid of criticality, which should include a definition of high-risk quantum technology applications).<br><br>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. <br><br>In general, our current intellectual property framework is not written with quantum technology in mind. Intellectual property should be an exception -limited in time and scope- to the rule that information goods can be used for the common good without restraint. Intellectual property 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. <br><br>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 &amp; reward mechanisms).<br><br>Regulating transformative technology in The Quantum Age requires synergetic relationships between legislation, standardization, certification and government institutions. The article suggests that quantum products and services made within the EU or elsewhere in the world should adhere to EU safety and security benchmarks, including not limited to the high technical, legal and ethical standards that reflect Trustworthy quantum technology core values, before they qualify for a CE-marking and are eligible to enter the European markets.<br><br>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 intellectual property strategies that strike the right balance between safeguarding our fundamental rights &amp; freedoms, our democratic norms &amp; 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. <br>","PeriodicalId":14586,"journal":{"name":"IO: Productivity","volume":"150 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating Transformative Technology in The Quantum Age: Intellectual Property, Standardization & Sustainable Innovation\",\"authors\":\"Mauritz Kop\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3653544\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The behavior of nature at the smallest scale can be strange and counterintuitive. In addition to unique physical characteristics, quantum technology has many legal aspects. In this article, we first explain what quantum technology entails. Next, we discuss implementation and areas of application, including quantum computing, quantum sensing and the quantum internet. Through an interdisciplinary lens, we then focus on intellectual property (‘IP’), standardization, ethical, legal &amp; social aspects (‘ELSA’) as well as horizontal &amp; industry-specific regulation of this transformative technology.<br><br>The Quantum Age raises many legal questions. For example, which existing legislation applies to quantum technology? What types of 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? Should we create global quantum safety, security and interoperability standards and make them mandatory in each area of application? In what way can quantum technology enhance artificial intelligence (‘AI’) that is legal, ethical and technically robust? <br><br>The article argues that the pervasiveness of quantum technology asks for a holistic view on a regulatory framework, that balances the interests of stakeholders and that of society at large. It demands for an agile legislative system that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and societal needs. <br><br>How can policy makers realize these objectives and regulate quantum computing, quantum sensing and the quantum internet in a socially responsible manner? Regulation that addresses risks in a proportional manner, whilst optimizing the benefits of this cutting edge technology? Without hindering sustainable innovation, including the apportionment of rights, responsibilities and duties of care? What are the effects of standardization and certification on innovation, intellectual property, competition and market-entrance of quantum-startups?<br><br>Moreover, which culturally sensitive ethical issues play a role in these regulations? Would it be a good first step to link the governance of quantum &amp; AI hybrids to the Trustworthy AI principles? Do quantum’s different physical properties call for additional core rules? Is it wise to embed our democratic values into the architecture of quantum systems, by way of Trustworthy Quantum Technology by Design? The article explores possible answers to these tantalizing questions.<br><br>Particles and energy at the subatomic level do not follow the same rules as the objects we can detect around us in our everyday lives. In addition to universal, overarching guiding principles of Trustworthy &amp; Responsible Quantum Technology that are in line with the unique physical characteristics of quantum mechanics, the article advocates a vertical, differentiated industry-specific legislative approach regarding innovation incentives (based on the innovation policy pluralism toolkit), externalities and risks (based on the pyramid of criticality, which should include a definition of high-risk quantum technology applications).<br><br>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. <br><br>In general, our current intellectual property framework is not written with quantum technology in mind. Intellectual property should be an exception -limited in time and scope- to the rule that information goods can be used for the common good without restraint. Intellectual property 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. <br><br>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 &amp; reward mechanisms).<br><br>Regulating transformative technology in The Quantum Age requires synergetic relationships between legislation, standardization, certification and government institutions. The article suggests that quantum products and services made within the EU or elsewhere in the world should adhere to EU safety and security benchmarks, including not limited to the high technical, legal and ethical standards that reflect Trustworthy quantum technology core values, before they qualify for a CE-marking and are eligible to enter the European markets.<br><br>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 intellectual property strategies that strike the right balance between safeguarding our fundamental rights &amp; freedoms, our democratic norms &amp; 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. <br>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IO: Productivity\",\"volume\":\"150 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IO: Productivity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3653544\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IO: Productivity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3653544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在最小的尺度上,自然的行为可能是奇怪的和违反直觉的。除了独特的物理特性外,量子技术还有许多法律方面的问题。在本文中,我们首先解释量子技术需要什么。接下来,我们将讨论实现和应用领域,包括量子计算,量子传感和量子互联网。通过跨学科的视角,我们专注于知识产权(“IP”),标准化,道德,法律和;社会方面(“ELSA”)以及横向&对这种变革性技术的行业特定监管。量子时代提出了许多法律问题。例如,现有的哪些立法适用于量子技术?可扩展量子计算机的组件可以授予哪些类型的知识产权?对于量子软件和硬件结构的发展和传播,是否有足够的市场创新激励?还是需要开源生态系统,丰富公共领域,甚至是量子技术的民主化?我们是否应该制定全球量子安全、安保和互操作性标准,并在每个应用领域强制执行?量子技术如何增强合法、道德和技术强大的人工智能(AI) ?文章认为,量子技术的普及要求对监管框架有一个整体的看法,以平衡利益相关者和整个社会的利益。它需要一个灵活的立法体系,能够迅速适应不断变化的环境和社会需求。政策制定者如何实现这些目标,并以对社会负责的方式监管量子计算、量子传感和量子互联网?以相称的方式解决风险的监管,同时优化这一尖端技术的好处?不妨碍可持续创新,包括权利、责任和义务的分配?标准化和认证对量子创业公司的创新、知识产权、竞争和市场准入有什么影响?此外,哪些文化敏感的伦理问题在这些规定中发挥了作用?将量子治理与互联网连接起来,会是一个良好的开端吗?可信赖AI原则的人工智能混合体?量子的不同物理性质需要额外的核心规则吗?通过设计可信赖的量子技术,将我们的民主价值观嵌入到量子系统的架构中是明智的吗?本文探讨了这些诱人问题的可能答案。亚原子水平上的粒子和能量与我们在日常生活中可以探测到的物体遵循的规则不同。除了“值得信赖”这一普遍的、总体的指导原则之外;负责任的量子技术符合量子力学独特的物理特征,文章主张在创新激励(基于创新政策多元化工具包),外部性和风险(基于临界金字塔,其中应包括高风险量子技术应用的定义)方面采用垂直的,差异化的行业特定立法方法。文章表明,战略性地使用混合知识产权来最大化量子计算机所有者的知识产权组合的价值,可能会导致知识产权的永久保护。重叠的知识产权保护制度可能导致先行者(少数大学和大公司)的全球独家开发权无限期持续。在量子计算领域,随之而来的知识产权过度保护导致了不必要的市场力量集中。信息的过度保护造成了市场壁垒,阻碍了健康的竞争和特定行业的创新。在这种特殊情况下,它减缓了量子技术的一个重要应用领域,即量子计算的进展。总的来说,我们目前的知识产权框架并没有考虑到量子技术。对于信息产品可以不受限制地用于公共利益这一规则来说,知识产权应该是一个例外——在时间和范围上都有限制。知识产权不能同时激励创造、防止市场失灵、解决赢者通吃效应、消除搭便车和禁止掠夺性市场行为。为了鼓励公平竞争和纠正市场偏差,反垄断法是选择的工具。本文提出了一种针对量子时代创新指数速度的解决方案,为量子和人工智能的创造和发明引入更短的知识产权保护期限,为3至10年。这些较短的术语可以同时适用于软件和硬件方面。 明确建议的专有权有限期限——与强制许可或固定的法定许可相结合——鼓励法律确定性、知识传播和量子领域的后续创新。从这个角度来看,政策制定者应该建立一个混合了自由(例如访问,公共领域)和控制(例如激励和;奖励机制)。在量子时代规范变革性技术需要立法、标准化、认证和政府机构之间的协同关系。文章建议,在欧盟或世界其他地方制造的量子产品和服务应该遵守欧盟安全和安全基准,包括不限于反映值得信赖的量子技术核心价值的高技术,法律和道德标准,然后才有资格获得ce标志并有资格进入欧洲市场。文章的结论是,预计量子技术将取得惊人的进步,政府、研究机构和市场准备监管和知识产权战略的时机已经成熟,这些战略可以在维护我们的基本权利和安全之间取得适当的平衡。自由,我们的民主规范;标准和追求的政策目标包括快速技术转让、信息自由流动和创建繁荣的全球量子生态系统,同时鼓励健康竞争和激励可持续创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Regulating Transformative Technology in The Quantum Age: Intellectual Property, Standardization & Sustainable Innovation
The behavior of nature at the smallest scale can be strange and counterintuitive. In addition to unique physical characteristics, quantum technology has many legal aspects. In this article, we first explain what quantum technology entails. Next, we discuss implementation and areas of application, including quantum computing, quantum sensing and the quantum internet. Through an interdisciplinary lens, we then focus on intellectual property (‘IP’), standardization, ethical, legal & social aspects (‘ELSA’) as well as horizontal & industry-specific regulation of this transformative technology.

The Quantum Age raises many legal questions. For example, which existing legislation applies to quantum technology? What types of 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? Should we create global quantum safety, security and interoperability standards and make them mandatory in each area of application? In what way can quantum technology enhance artificial intelligence (‘AI’) that is legal, ethical and technically robust?

The article argues that the pervasiveness of quantum technology asks for a holistic view on a regulatory framework, that balances the interests of stakeholders and that of society at large. It demands for an agile legislative system that can adapt quickly to changing circumstances and societal needs.

How can policy makers realize these objectives and regulate quantum computing, quantum sensing and the quantum internet in a socially responsible manner? Regulation that addresses risks in a proportional manner, whilst optimizing the benefits of this cutting edge technology? Without hindering sustainable innovation, including the apportionment of rights, responsibilities and duties of care? What are the effects of standardization and certification on innovation, intellectual property, competition and market-entrance of quantum-startups?

Moreover, which culturally sensitive ethical issues play a role in these regulations? Would it be a good first step to link the governance of quantum & AI hybrids to the Trustworthy AI principles? Do quantum’s different physical properties call for additional core rules? Is it wise to embed our democratic values into the architecture of quantum systems, by way of Trustworthy Quantum Technology by Design? The article explores possible answers to these tantalizing questions.

Particles and energy at the subatomic level do not follow the same rules as the objects we can detect around us in our everyday lives. In addition to universal, overarching guiding principles of Trustworthy & Responsible Quantum Technology that are in line with the unique physical characteristics of quantum mechanics, the article advocates a vertical, differentiated industry-specific legislative approach regarding innovation incentives (based on the innovation policy pluralism toolkit), externalities and risks (based on the pyramid of criticality, which should include a definition of high-risk quantum technology applications).

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.

In general, our current intellectual property framework is not written with quantum technology in mind. Intellectual property should be an exception -limited in time and scope- to the rule that information goods can be used for the common good without restraint. Intellectual property 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.

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).

Regulating transformative technology in The Quantum Age requires synergetic relationships between legislation, standardization, certification and government institutions. The article suggests that quantum products and services made within the EU or elsewhere in the world should adhere to EU safety and security benchmarks, including not limited to the high technical, legal and ethical standards that reflect Trustworthy quantum technology core values, before they qualify for a CE-marking and are eligible to enter the European markets.

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 intellectual property 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Labour Productivity Improvements from Energy Efficiency Investments: The Experience of European Firms Green innovation downturn: the role of imperfect competition The Differential Impact of Intra-Firm Collaboration and Technological Network Centrality on Employees' Likelihood of Leaving the Firm Environmental Catastrophe and the Direction of Invention: Evidence from the American Dust Bowl An Industrial Organization Perspective on Productivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1