BETA

7 Amendments of Sandro GOZI related to 2020/2015(INI)

Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
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);
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
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;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
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;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
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;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Believes that to ensure the development of human-centric, trusted AI, a strong harmonized regime for whistle-blowers is needed to make sure that algorithms and data sets do not carry biases, are non-discriminatory and adhere to the ethical standards proclaimed; therefore calls on the Commission to assess in its report to the Parliament pursuant to article 27 (3) of the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 the need to revise its Annex in order to include any regulatory EU framework for AI;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
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;
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
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.
2020/05/07
Committee: IMCO