8 Amendments of Claudia GAMON related to 2020/2015(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls the potential that AI has to deliver innovative services to businesses, consumers and the public sector; underlines that the development and use of AI in the internal market will depend onbenefit from a balanced and effective system of intellectual property rights (IPRs);
Amendment 12 #
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; considers that all companies shouldcan benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups and SMEs via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to develop and protect their products;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that besides protecting IPRs, it is in the interest of consumers to have legal certainty about allowed uses of protected works, especially when it comes to complicated algorithmic products;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 33 #
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 alone ineffective;
Amendment 36 #
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 isheir adherence to ethical standards, their processes need to be transparent, and their decisions should be explainable to the extent possible, but notes that these objectives are not necessarily achieved only, or at all,solely through simple disclosure of the algorithm or code;
Amendment 42 #
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 toolways that would allow productsthem to be adequately tested without creating risks for IPR holders due to extensive disclosure of easily replicated productinappropriate risks of potential disclosure for IPR holders.