We Robot, annual robotics law and policy conference

[Administrator]

twitter.com/we_robot

We Robot 2024 - July 18-20, 2024, University of Miami School of Law, Florida City, USA

We Robot 2023 - September 29-30, 2023, Boston University School of Law and the MIT Media Lab, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

We Robot 2022 - September 14 - 16, 2022, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

werobot2022.com

We Robot 2021 - September 23 - 25, 2021, University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, USA

werobot2021.com

We Robot 2020 - September 22 - 25, 2020, virtual

techlaw.uottawa.ca/werobot

We Robot 2019 - April 11 - 13, 2019, University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, USA

We Robot 2018 - April 12 - 14, 2018, Stanford Law School, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
werobot2018.com

We Robot 2017 - March 31 - April 1, Yale Law School, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

We Robot 2016 - April 1-2, 2016, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA

We Robot 2015 - werobot2015.org - April 10-11, 2015, University of Washington School of Law, William H. Gates Hall, USA

 

[Administrator]

We Robot 2013 | Robotics and Intellectual Property

Published on Apr 29, 2013

On April 8, 2013, Stanford's Program in Law, Science & Technology and Stanford's Center for Internet and Society hosted the second annual robotics and law conference "We Robot: Getting Down to Business."
The event featured leading scholars, practitioners and engineers who discussed the immediate commercial prospects of robotics and the best legal and policy infrastructure for the burgeoning robotics industry.
In this video, a panel featuring SLS Professor Mark Lemley along with Christian Hicks and Julie Samuels discuss "Robotics and Intellectual Property."

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 KEYNOTE: An Evening with Tony Dyson

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Tony Dyson, noted roboticist and special effects model-maker, and the builder of R2D2, discusses the future of robotics with Professor Ryan Calo of the University of Washington School of Law.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 1: “Who’s Johnny? (Anthropomorphizing Robots)”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Author: Kate Darling
Discussant: Ken Goldberg
Paper

As we increasingly create spaces where robotic technology interacts with humans, our tendency to project lifelike qualities onto robots raises questions around use and policy. Based on a human-robot-interaction experiment conducted in our lab, this paper explores the effects of anthropomorphic framing in the introduction of robotic technology. It discusses concerns about anthropomorphism in certain contexts, but argues that there are also cases where encouraging anthropomorphism is desirable. Because people respond to framing, framing could serve as a tool to separate these cases.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 2: “Robot Passports”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Author: Anupam Chander
Discussant: Ann Bartow
Paper

Can international trade law, which after all seeks to liberalize trade in both goods and services, help stave off attempts to erect border barriers to this new type of trade? The smart objects of the 21st century consist of both goods and information services, and thus are subject to multiple means of government protectionism, but also trade liberalization. This paper is the first effort to locate and analyze the Internet of Things and modern robotics within the international trade framework.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 3: “Robotics Governance”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Panelists: Peter Asaro, Jason Millar, Kristen Thomasen, & David Post

Asaro, “Regulating Robots: A Multi-Scale Approach to Developing Robot Policy and Technology” http://bit.ly/1H1fZE8
Millar, “Sketching an Ethics Evaluation Tool for Robot Design and Governance” http://bit.ly/1Fsqro4
Thomasen, “Driving Lessons: Learning from the History of Automobile Regulation to Legislate Better Drones” http://bit.ly/1DQQrnx

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 4: “Regulating Healthcare Robots”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: Drew Simshaw, Nicolas Terry, Kris Hauser, M.L. Cumming
Discussant: Cindy Jacobs
Paper

There are basic, pressing issues that need to be addressed in the nearer future in order to ensure that robots are able to maintain sustainable innovation with the confidence of providers, patients, consumers, and investors. We will only be able to maximize the potential of robots in healthcare through responsible design, deployment, and use, which must include taking into consideration potential issues that could, if overlooked, manifest themselves in ways that harm patients and consumers, diminish the trust of key stakeholders of robots in healthcare, and stifle long-term innovation by resulting in overly restrictive reactionary regulation. In this paper, we focus on the issues of patient and user safety, security, and privacy, and specifically the effect of medical device regulation and data protection laws on robots in healthcare.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 5: “Law and Ethics of Telepresence Robots”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: J. Nathan Matias, Chelsea Barabas, Chris Bavitz, Cecillia Xie, & Jack Xu
Discussant: Laurel Riek
Paper

The deployment of telepresence robots creates enormous possibilities for enhanced long-distance interactions, educational opportunities, and bridging of social and cultural gaps. The use of telepresence robots raises some legal and ethical issues, however. This proposal outlines the development of a law and ethics toolkit directed to those who operate and allow others to operate telepresence robots, describing some of the potential legal ethical issues that arise from their use and offering proposed responses and means of addressing and allocating risk.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 6: “Unfair and Deceptive Robots”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Author: Woodrow Hartzog
Discussant: Ryan Calo
Paper

What should consumer protection rules for robots look like? The FTC’s grant of authority and existing jurisprudence make it the preferable regulatory agency for protecting consumers who buy and interact with robots. The FTC has proven to be a capable regulator of communications, organizational procedures, and design, which are the three crucial concepts for safe consumer robots. Additionally, the structure and history of the FTC shows that the agency is capable of fostering new technologies as it did with the Internet. The agency defers to industry standards, avoids dramatic regulatory lurches, and cooperates with other agencies. Consumer robotics is an expansive field with great potential. A light but steady response by the FTC will allow the consumer robotics industry to thrive while preserving consumer trust and keeping consumers safe from harm.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 7: “The Presentation of the Machine in Everyday Life”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: Karen Levy & Tim Hwang
Discussant: Evan Selinger
Paper

As policy concerns around intelligent and autonomous systems come to focus increasingly on transparency and usability, the time is ripe for an inquiry into the theater of autonomous systems. When do (and when should) law and policy explicitly regulate the optics of autonomous systems (for instance, requiring electric vehicle engines to “rev” audibly for safety reasons) as opposed to their actual capabilities? What are the benefits and dangers of doing so? What economic and social pressures compel a focus on system theater, and what are the ethical and policy implications of such a focus?

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 8: “Operator Signatures for Teleoperated Robots”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: Tamara Bonaci, Aaron Alva, Jeffrey Herron, Ryan Calo, Howard Chizeck
Discussant: Margot Kaminski
Paper

This paper discusses legal liability and evidentiary issues that operator signatures could occasion or help to resolve. We first provide a background of teleoperated robotic systems, and introduce the concept of operator signatures. We then discuss some cyber-security risks that may arise during teleoperated procedures, and describe the three main task operator signatures seek to address—identification, authentication, and real-time monitoring. Third, we discuss legal issues that arise for each of these tasks. We discuss what legal problems operator signatures help mitigate. We then focus on liability concerns that may arise when operator signatures are used as a part of a real-time monitoring and alert tool. We consider the various scenarios where actions are conducted on the basis of an operator signature alert. Finally, we provide preliminary guidance on how to balance the need to mitigate cyber-security risks with the desire to enable adoption of teleoperation.

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 9: “Robot Economics”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Panelists: Colin Lewis, Andra Keay, Garry Mathiason, Dan Siciliano

 

[Administrator]

WeRobot 2015 Panel 10: “Personal Responsibility and Neuroprosthetics”

Published on Apr 29, 2015

Authors: Patrick Moore, Timothy Brown, Jeffrey Herron, Margaret Thompson, Tamara Bonaci, Sara Goering, Howard Chizeck
Discussant: Meg Leta Jones
Paper

This paper investigates whether giving users volitional control over therapeutic brain implants is ethically and legally permissible. We believe that it is not only permissible—it is in fact advantageous when compared to the alternative of making such systems’ operation entirely automatic. From an ethical perspective, volitional control maintains the integrity of the self by allowing the user to view the technology as restoring, preserving, or enhancing one’s abilities without the fear of losing control over one’s own humanity. This preservation of self- integrity carries into the legal realm, where giving users control of the system keeps responsibility for the consequences of its use in human hands.

 

[Administrator]

Article "Considering the future of law and robotics: We Robot 2016 video recap"

by Robohub Editors
April 11, 2016