Figure 1 - uploaded by Christophe Leroux
Content may be subject to copyright.
robots a matter of definition  

robots a matter of definition  

Source publication
Book
Full-text available
This document contains a description of legal issues in robotics together with a set of recommendations and some elements for a roadmap to overcome any problems we identified. The document is the result of one of the first transnational dialogues between the law community and the robotics community. It is meant to stimulate a debate on this topic....

Citations

... 132-134. 78 According to Ercilla García (2018), p. 20;Núñez Zorrilla (2019), p. 63;Leroux (2012), pp. 60 et seq. ...
Chapter
Deep learning based on artificial neural networks is currently the most promising machine learning method in the field of AI. This paper distinguishes four legal protection objects of artificial neural networks per se: the training data, the topology, the weights as an expression of the trained network, and the specific training method. Both archetypical intellectual property (IP) rights, copyright and patent law, fall to some extent short of protecting these objects. This article examines whether and to what extent trade secret protection could be a suitable or supplementary legal protection tool. Trade secret protection is, among other advantages, flexible. Its greatest weakness, however, is that it allows for reverse engineering which in turn limits its application as a legal protection tool. In the case of an adaptation, trade secret law could at least temporarily supplement patent law and partially replace the classical anthropocentric copyright law in the field of deep learning.
... 65 European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs (2016, p. 22). 66 The European focus on robotics can best be understood taking into account that the RoboLaws project: Palmerini et al. (2016) and the Green Paper on legal issues in robotics by Leroux and Labruto (2013 The report envisions a combination 77 of hard and soft laws to guard against possible risks. This is particularly welcome considering that in complex, or, in our conceptualization, in mature information societies a double-pronged approach that includes both primary and secondary legal rules will be necessary (Pagallo 2016a). ...
Article
Full-text available
In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a 'good AI society'. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a 'good AI society'; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a 'good AI society'. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.
... This is because the analysis was made top-down. The use of top-down approaches is common in juridical analysis, and has been used to address legal and ethical aspects for robot technologies in the past (Leroux 2012). Without explaining what 'top-down' approach is, the authors of the euRobotics project maintained that the bottom-up approach is time demanding, presents the risk to forget some legal issues and to fragment the problem, and may lead to miss commonalities with other technological disciplines. ...
Article
Full-text available
This project envisions an iterative regulatory process for robot governance. A theoretical model represents a step forward in the coordination and alignment of robot and regulatory development. Our work builds on previous literature, and explores modes of alignment and iteration towards greater closeness in the nexus between research and development (R&D) and regulatory appraisal and channeling of robotics’ development. To illustrate practical challenges and solutions, we explore different examples of (related) types of communication processes between robot developers and regulatory bodies. These examples help illuminate the lack of formalization of the policy making process, and the loss of time and resources that the waste of knowledge generated for future robot governance instruments implies. We argue that initiatives that fail to formalize the communication process between different actors and that propose the mere creation of coordinating agencies risk being seriously ineffective. We propose an iterative regulatory process for robot governance, which combines the use of an ex ante robot impact assessment for legal/ethical appraisal, and evaluation settings as data generators, and an ex post legislative evaluation instrument that eases the revision, modification and update of the normative instrument. In all, the model breathes the concept of creating dynamic evidence-based policies that can serve as temporary benchmark for future and/or new uses or robot developments. Our contribution seeks to provide a thoughtful proposal that avoids the current mismatch between existing governmental approaches and what is needed for effective ethical/legal oversight, in the hope that this will inform the policy debate and set the scene for further research.
... 83 SeeMulligan & Perzanowski (2007) citing to multiple news sources and discussing Sony's assertion of a DMCA violation in stopping the use of unauthorized computer code distributed for use with its Aibo robotic-toy dog.84 Such "open" issues about robot-generated works and IP rights were the subject of Christophe Leroux's presentation at the November 2012 International Workshop on Autonomics and Legal Implications, seeLeroux (2012). ...
... See Mulligan and Perzanowski (2007). 130. Leroux (2012). ...
... See Mulligan and Perzanowski (2007). 130. Leroux (2012). ...
... Robots are often deemed 'exceptional' [11] and different arguments are given in order to support such conclusion. The consequence of this premise is that the adequacy of existing rules is questioned, most often in light of purely technical considerations regarding the robot's autonomy or ability to learn [12] and the conclusion is drawn that alternative solutions -and liability rules -ought to be developed [13]. ...
... By pushing the ontological argument further, one might conclude that robots -in some cases at least, namely when really autonomousamount to subjects, rather than objects; hence some sort of -legal -personhood [13] should be attributed to them, with all the consequences that may be derived therefrom in terms of rights and liabilities. ...
Article
Full-text available
Robots are slowly, but certainly, entering people’s professional and private lives. They require the attention of regulators due to the challenges they present to existing legal frameworks and the new legal and ethical questions they raise. This paper discusses four major regulatory dilemmas in the field of robotics: how to keep up with technological advances; how to strike a balance between stimulating innovation and the protection of fundamental rights and values; whether to affirm prevalent social norms or nudge social norms in a different direction; and, how to balance effectiveness versus legitimacy in techno-regulation. The four dilemmas are each treated in the context of a particular modality of regulation: law, market, social norms, and technology as a regulatory tool; and for each, we focus on particular topics – such as liability, privacy, and autonomy – that often feature as the major issues requiring regulatory attention. The paper then highlights the role and potential of the European framework of rights and values, responsible research and innovation, smart regulation and soft law as means of dealing with the dilemmas.
Chapter
Back in 2016, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament published a pioneering initiative, the Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (the “Resolution”, or the “EP proposed rules”). The EP proposed rules were intended to bring a common EU solution to the legal challenges posed by, amongst others, smart autonomous robots. This chapter scrutinizes the applicability of one of the solutions proposed by the EP proposed rules: the granting of electronic personhood to such robots by critically evaluating the existence of a legal basis for it.
Chapter
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is ‘in the air’. The disruptive technologies AI is based on (as well as respective applications) are likely to influence the competition on and for various markets in due course. The handling of opportunities and threats re AI are so far still an open question—and research on the competitive effects of AI has just commenced recently. Statements about AI and the corresponding effects are thereby necessarily only of a temporary nature. From a jurisprudential point of view, it is however important to underline (not only) the framework for AI provided by competition law. On the basis of the 9th amendment of the German Act Against Restraints of Competition (ARC) 2017, German competition law seems to be—to a large extent—adequately prepared for the phenomenon of AI. Nevertheless, considering the characteristics of AI described in this paper, at least the interpretation of German (and European) competition law rules requires an ‘update’. In particular, tacit collusion as well as systematic predispositions of AI applications re market abuse and cartelization analyzed in this paper are to be pictured. Additionally, this paper stresses that further amendments to (European and German) competition law rules should be examined with respect to the liability for AI and law enforcement, whereby the respective effects on innovation and the market themselves will have to be considered carefully. Against this background, this paper argues that strict liability for AI might lead to negative effects on innovation and discusses a limited liability re public sanctions in analogy to intermediary liability concepts developed in tort law, unfair competition law and intellectual property law. Addressing the topic of a ‘legal personality’ for AI-based autonomous systems, this paper finally engages with the consequences of such a status for competition law liability.
Article
Full-text available
This article is an analytic register of recent European efforts in the making of ‘autonomous’ robots to address what is imagined as Europe’s societal challenges. The paper describes how an emerging techno-epistemic network stretches across industry, science, policy and law to legitimize and enact a robotics innovation agenda. Roadmap is the main metaphor and organizing tool in working across the disciplines and sectors, and in aligning these heterogeneous actors with a machine-centric vision along a path to make way for ‘new kinds’ of robots. We describe what happens as this industry-dominated project docks in a public–private partnership with pan-European institutions and a legislative initiative on robolaw. Emphasizing the co-production of robotics and European innovation politics, we observe how well-known uncertainties and scholarly debates about machine capabilities and human–machine configurations, are unexpectedly played out in legal scholarship and institutions as a controversy and a significant problem for human-centered legal frameworks. European robotics are indeed driving an increase in speculative ethics and a new-found weight of possible futures in legislative practice.