10 Amendments of David CORMAND related to 2020/2015(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products; considersing that all companies should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection; calls for an analysis of the current costs to benefit from protection and in the abusive practices from patent trolls and strategic IPR litigations;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls the European Commission to ensure that data generated with public funds, when used in AI technologies also brings a public benefit in the form of compulsory open data results or conclusions of that AI processing.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls for the European Commission to propose measures for data traceability, having in mind both the legality of data acquisition and the protection of consumer and fundamental rights.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs, including trade secrets, in any regulatory framework for AI, in particular as regards any detailed requirements for the narrow set of applications deemed ‘high-risk’; underlines that trade secrets should never limit the ability of authorities to analyse algorithms and products, while transparency measures for consumers should always be foreseen.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the challenge of assessing AI applications requires the development of new methods; notes, for instance, that adaptive learning systems may recalibrate following each input, making certain ex ante disclosures ineffectiverequiring ex-post as well as ex ante disclosures and proper administrative capacity for the market surveillance authorities;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate transparency, explainability and adherence to ethical standards, but notes that this aim is not necessarily achieved only, or at all, through simple disclosure of the algorithm or code; reminds that data sets are as important in this process and that discrimination and bias could be present independent of the mere code;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to consider how to assess products in a modular way or with the use of verification tools that would allow products to be adequately tested without creating risks for IPR holders due to extensive disclosure of easily replicated productat every step of their life stage and establish a comprehensive complaint mechanisms.
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that intellectual property rights are a monopoly created in favour of a limited number of stakeholders in order to generate befits for the entire society and believes that the ongoing pandemic has shown that such monopolies should be always accompanied by the proper exceptions. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the future legislation will include additional IPR exceptions for emergency situations, in the interest of the public good.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls on the Commission to continue analysing the legal framework and the technological developments, in order to determine if the current legal provisions properly cover the artificial intelligence technologies and respond appropriately.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Calls for the establishment of an EU body tasked with monitoring and ensuring compliance with the legal provisions of artificial intelligence technologies implementations.