Harmonising Trade Secret Protection in AI: Innovation, Opacity and Digital Vulnerability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the subject matter and research approach of the article are relevant and worthwhile. However, the manuscript contains several weaknesses that should be addressed, both in terms of substance and format.

First, while the article primarily concerns trade secrets, both the title and numerous passages refer more broadly to “intellectual property.” It is not generally accepted that trade secrets fall within the realm of intellectual property proper (even though they are addressed by the TRIPS Agreement), given that trade secret protection does not confer an exclusive property right in the same sense as patents or copyright, but rather protects against unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure (see, for example, European Commission, Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets) against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure, SWD(2013) 471 final, p. 9). This conceptual distinction should be clarified, and the authors should strongly consider whether the title accurately reflects the article’s focus.

Second, the article lacks sufficient references in several places where an academic reader would reasonably expect supporting sources. This is particularly evident in the Introduction (lines 28–46) and in Chapter 3 (“Findings”), including lines 90–97, 250–260, 266–274, 275–283, and 332–342. These sections contain general or analytical statements that require proper sourcing and engagement with relevant scholarship.

Third, the article would benefit from a more thorough analysis of how trade secret protection interacts with other rights and interests in existing legal instruments. For example, the Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) includes several provisions addressing the balance between transparency requirements and trade secret protection. While briefly mentioned (lines 213–217), the discussion is limited. A more systematic engagement with the Act’s balancing mechanisms could strengthen the normative analysis and provide a comparative framework for the authors’ conclusions.

In line with this, the conclusions regarding the balance between trade secret protection and other rights and interests (lines 426–433) should be reconsidered in light of the approach taken in the EU AI Act. As currently formulated, these conclusions do not appear to be fully supported by the sources cited earlier. A clearer argumentative link between the doctrinal analysis and the normative conclusions is recommended.

Finally, lines 248–249 contain text that appears to be an editorial comment rather than part of the manuscript (i.e., “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the findings.”). This should be removed from the final version.

As regards formal and structural issues, there are several inconsistencies in internal cross-referencing. For example:
- Line 265 refers to the “second chapter,” although the relevant section is in the third chapter.
- Line 463 refers to the “third chapter,” whereas the relevant material appears in the fourth chapter.

These references should be corrected.

Additionally, the abbreviations “USMCA” and “CPTPP” should be spelled out in full upon first use (line 137). While they are explained later (lines 175–176), this should occur at first mention.

In line 201, the text refers to “the specialized literature,” but no source is provided. A proper reference should be added.

Finally, the wording in line 194 concerning Article 19.16(2) of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) should be reviewed. The current phrasing appears to refer explicitly to the “United States Trade Representative,” which does not correspond to the official treaty text. The authors are advised to consult the authoritative version to ensure accurate quotation and terminology (USMCA, Article 19.16(2), available at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/19-Digital-Trade.pdf).

 

Author Response

For research article/ First reviewer

 

 

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

 

We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive and detailed comments. We appreciate the insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving both the conceptual clarity and the overall structure of the paper. In response, we have revised the manuscript to address all the points raised, including conceptual clarification regarding trade secrets and intellectual property, expansion of the bibliographical references, a more systematic engagement with the EU AI Act, and improvements in structure, cross-referencing, and formal accuracy. All revisions have been incorporated into the resubmitted version.

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1

 

First, while the article primarily concerns trade secrets, both the title and numerous passages refer more broadly to “intellectual property.” […] This conceptual distinction should be clarified, and the authors should strongly consider whether the title accurately reflects the article’s focus.

 

Response 1

 

We thank the reviewer for this important conceptual clarification. We agree that trade secrets do not fully coincide with intellectual property rights in the strict sense, as they do not confer exclusive rights but rather protection against unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure. In response, we have revised the manuscript in two ways:

 

Conceptual clarification: We explicitly address this distinction in the Introduction, clarifying that although trade secrets are conceptually distinct, they are treated within the broader international framework of intellectual property, particularly in light of their inclusion in TRIPS (Article 39).

Terminological adjustments: We have revised the title and relevant passages throughout the text to ensure greater precision and consistency between the scope of the article and its terminology.

 

These revisions can be found in the Introduction and reflected in the updated title.

 

Comment 2

 

Second, the article lacks sufficient references in several places […] These sections contain general or analytical statements that require proper sourcing and engagement with relevant scholarship.

 

Response 2

 

We agree with the reviewer that several sections required stronger engagement with the literature. In response, we have substantially expanded the bibliographical support throughout the manuscript, particularly in: the Introduction, Findings and the sections explicitly indicated by the reviewer.

 

We have added references to both legal scholarship and interdisciplinary literature (AI ethics and digital governance), ensuring that all analytical claims are now properly supported.

 

Comment 3

 

Third, the article would benefit from a more thorough analysis of how trade secret protection interacts with other rights and interests […] A more systematic engagement with the Act’s balancing mechanisms could strengthen the normative analysis.

 

Response 3

 

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have significantly expanded the analysis of the EU AI Act, providing a more systematic examination of how it balances: trade secret protection, transparency requirements and fundamental rights. The revised manuscript now includes a detailed discussion of relevant provisions (e.g., documentation, traceability, access by authorities);

explicit analysis of the tension between confidentiality and accountability;

and a clearer articulation of how this balance operates in practice. This expanded discussion can be found in Section 3 (Findings).

 

Comment 4

 

[…] the conclusions regarding the balance between trade secret protection and other rights […] should be reconsidered in light of the approach taken in the EU AI Act […] A clearer argumentative link […] is recommended.

 

Response 4

 

We fully agree with this comment and have revised the manuscript accordingly. To strengthen the connection between doctrinal analysis and normative conclusions, we have: Introduced an explicit analytical bridge between the discussion of the EU AI Act and the normative framework proposed in the paper, reformulated parts of the Discussion and Conclusions to ensure that the proposed principles clearly derive from the preceding doctrinal analysis, clarified that our proposal builds upon, and systematizes, existing regulatory tendencies rather than introducing purely external normative claims.

 

Comment 5

 

[…] lines 248–249 contain text that appears to be an editorial comment […] This should be removed.

 

Response 5

 

We thank the reviewer for identifying this issue. The indicated editorial text has been removed from the manuscript.

 

Comment 6

 

[…] inconsistencies in internal cross-referencing […] These references should be corrected.

 

Response 6

 

We agree and have carefully reviewed all internal cross-references throughout the manuscript. All incorrect references to chapters and sections have been corrected to ensure consistency and accuracy.

 

Comment 7

 

[…] the abbreviations “USMCA” and “CPTPP” should be spelled out in full upon first use.

 

Response 7

 

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations, including “United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA)” and “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP),” are spelled out in full at their first occurrence.

 

Comment 8

 

[…] “the specialized literature” […] no source is provided.

 

Response 8

 

We agree and have added appropriate references to support this statement, ensuring that all claims referring to the literature are now properly substantiated.

 

Comment 9

 

[…] wording […] concerning Article 19.16(2) of the USMCA should be reviewed […]

 

Response 9

 

We thank the reviewer for this important correction. We have revised the wording of this passage to ensure full consistency with the official text of the USMCA, removing inaccurate references and aligning the terminology with the authoritative version of the agreement.

 

5. Additional Clarifications

 

In addition to the changes requested by the reviewer, we have also: improved the methodological section by clarifying the study design, analytical procedure, and theoretical framework, strengthened the conceptual articulation of vulnerability within the methodological section, as suggested and refined the overall structure and flow of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The impact of AI on IP rights is a topic of interest and the author is proposing changes to current international systems which I do agree with.

The abstract reads like it has been written by ChatGPT or a similar AI tool. The writing s general and vague, uses dashes which is unusual and detracts from the writing. There are several grammatical errors. The abstract does not meet its purpose as it doesn’t clearly define the research problem, the methods, findings and a synopsis.

The writing is not backed by sufficient sources or references to support the assertions made. This means it is not underpinned by research and is essentially opinion writing. Take for example the following sentence from page 2, it is too long winded, there is no explanation of “opaque systems” and why is it a “chilling effect”? The reader has thrown everything which leads to superficial analysis.

“Opaque systems come to decide on access to credit, employment opportunities, social benefits, and judicial proceedings, while individuals and groups, especially those already affected by class, race, gender, and geographic inequalities, remain unable to understand or challenge these decisions. In this context, robust and harmonized protection of trade secrets may itself become a source of pathogenic vulnerability, insofar as it prevents states from requiring explainability, documentation, and qualified access to models when fundamental rights are at stake, thus producing a chilling effect on more protective regulatory frameworks.”

Writing needs to be more direct, e.g. at the methods section, the author states “methodological aspects”, what are aspects in relation to sound, robust and established methodologies? Writing is confused, muddled, overly reliant on AI tools and vague.

The methods section is weak. It needs to outline the study design, materials used, procedural steps taken, and the techniques used for data analysis. Each component must be explained with sufficient clarity to enable readers to understand how the results were generated, assess the reliability and validity of the approach, and to accurately interpret the findings. Detailed methodological transparency is essential to ensure reproducibility, critical evaluation, and scholarly rigour. For example, ontology is discussed at page 8 and should be discussed in the methods first.

 

There are references to chapters and this relates more to books than a journal paper.

The research points to the need for a “global intellectual property policy guided by an ethics of vulnerability” but doesn’t sufficiently explain why or set out what would be the main criterion of such a policy.

Sweeping statements made without underpinning research and terms need to be defined in the first instance. Human rights arguments are not clearly aligned to the policy guide proposal as there is no drilled down sections on human rights and trade secrets/IP policy in relation to the ethics of vulnerability proposal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Covered in first section.

Author Response

For research article/ Second reviewer

                                                 

Response to Reviewer Comments

 

1. Summary

 

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback. We appreciate the critical remarks, which have helped us improve the clarity, structure, and argumentative rigor of the paper. In response, we have revised the abstract, strengthened the engagement with the literature, clarified key concepts, substantially restructured the methodology section, and improved the articulation between human rights, trade secret protection, and the ethics of vulnerability. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1

 

The abstract reads like it has been written by ChatGPT or a similar AI tool. The writing is general and vague, uses dashes which is unusual and detracts from the writing. There are several grammatical errors. The abstract does not meet its purpose as it doesn’t clearly define the research problem, the methods, findings and a synopsis.

 

Response 1

 

We have fully revised the abstract to improve clarity, precision, and academic style. In particular, we have: removed stylistic elements that detracted from clarity (including the use of dashes), corrected grammatical issues, explicitly defined the research problem.

 

Comment 2

 

The writing is not backed by sufficient sources or references […] The reader has thrown everything which leads to superficial analysis.

 

Response 2

 

We agree with the reviewer that several sections required stronger engagement with the literature and greater conceptual clarity. In response, we have: expanded the bibliographical support throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Introduction and Findings, added references to substantiate analytical claims, revised overly long and dense sentences to improve clarity and precision and clarified key concepts, including “opaque systems” and the notion of a “chilling effect,” situating them within the relevant legal and interdisciplinary literature. The specific passage indicated by the reviewer has been rewritten to improve both conceptual clarity and argumentative structure.

 

Comment 3

 

Writing needs to be more direct […] The methods section is weak […] ontology is discussed later and should appear in the methods.

 

Response 3

 

We thank the reviewer for this detailed and constructive comment. We have substantially revised the methodology section. The revised section now: clearly defines the study design (qualitative and normative), specifies the materials used (bibliographical and documentary sources), outlines the analytical procedure step by step, explains the analytical technique (doctrinal analysis combined with normative reconstruction) and explicitly introduces the theoretical and ontological framework (ethics of vulnerability) at the beginning of the section.

 

Comment 4

 

There are references to chapters and this relates more to books than a journal paper.

 

Response 4

 

We agree with the reviewer and have removed references to “chapters” throughout the manuscript.

 

Comment 5

 

The research points to the need for a “global intellectual property policy guided by an ethics of vulnerability” but doesn’t sufficiently explain why or set out what would be the main criterion of such a policy.

 

Response 5

 

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this point. In response, we have strengthened the conceptual and normative clarification of the proposed framework.

 

The revised manuscript now: explains more explicitly why existing approaches are insufficient to address the identified tensions, clarifies the role of vulnerability as a normative criterion and identifies key guiding elements of a vulnerability-sensitive approach. These clarifications are developed in greater detail in the Discussion and Conclusions sections.

 

Comment 6

 

Sweeping statements made without underpinning research […] Human rights arguments are not clearly aligned […]

 

Response 6

 

We agree with the reviewer that stronger alignment between human rights analysis and the proposed framework was necessary. In response, we have: added references to support previously unsupported claims, clarified and defined key terms at their first occurrence.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend to consider the observation as follows:

• The paper uses numbered sections/paragraphs but they are called  'chapters' and the internal numbering doesn't match. In Section 3.2 (line 365), the text says 'this second chapter has sought to build the conceptual vocabulary…' In Section 4 (lines 390 and 463), the text says "this third chapter." I would suggest to use the words sections or paragraphs

 

• Several works cited in the text do not appear in the references: e.g. Bostrom, 2014 (line 101), Russell & Norvig, 2020 (line 101), Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014 (line 101), Fineman, 2008 (line 288); other works are present in the bibliography but they are not cited in the text; please check the citations 

• The reference list does not follow a single citation style: please verify 
• there are some repetitions which could be avoided: e.g. lines 85-89 and 98-101; 90-92, 125 ff.,164-167; 140 and 171, etc. 
• Check the notes: e.g. note no. 1 seems to be referred to line 130 instead 134
• in lines 214-216, please make reference to the provisions of the AI Act providing on a hand the duty of transparency and on other hand the protection of the IPR rules; due to the fact this is a very important point, if possible, it should be better developed; please put the references to the document of UNESCO and develop its content;
• lines 248-249 the sentence 'This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the findings.' sounds as a sort of instruction: it could be deleted;
• lines 269-273 in addition to the opacity I would suggest to refer to other issues, e.g. biases and hallucinations; please refer to the legal doctrine or institutional documents (e.g. those of the European Commission);
• In lines 397 ff and in other parts it should be opportune to quotes institutional sources such as the "High-Level Expert Group on AI presented Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence" of 2019 and the principles herein provided, as well as the relevant literature;
• Paragraph 4 contains a subparagraph 4.1 but no other subparagraphs
• I suggest to increase the citation to the legal literature and to the official document to support the arguments 

Author Response

For research article/ third reviewer                                       

1. Summary

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the precise and constructive suggestions. The comments have been very helpful in improving the consistency, accuracy, and scholarly rigor of the paper. In response, we have revised the manuscript to correct structural inconsistencies, standardize references and citation style, expand engagement with legal and institutional sources, and refine the internal organization of the text. All revisions have been incorporated into the resubmitted version.

 

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment 1

The paper uses numbered sections/paragraphs but they are called 'chapters' and the internal numbering doesn't match […] I would suggest to use the words sections or paragraphs.

 

Response 1

We thank the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. We have revised the manuscript to replace all references to “chapters” with “sections” and correct all internal cross-references to ensure consistency with the numbering structure of the article. These changes have been applied throughout the manuscript.

 

Comment 2

 

Several works cited in the text do not appear in the references […] please check the citations.

 

Response 2

We agree with the reviewer and have conducted a comprehensive revision of all citations and references. Specifically, we have ensured that all works cited in the text are included in the reference list, removed inconsistencies between in-text citations and the bibliography and verified the accuracy of all references.

 

Comment 3

 

The reference list does not follow a single citation style […] there are some repetitions […] check the notes […]

 

Response 3

We thank the reviewer for this detailed observation. In response, we have standardized the reference list to ensure consistency with a single citation style, eliminated repeated passages and unnecessary duplications and carefully reviewed all notes.

 

Comment 4

 

[…] please make reference to the provisions of the AI Act […] and develop its content; please put the references to the document of UNESCO and develop its content.

 

Response 4

We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We have expanded the analysis of the EU AI Act by explicitly referencing provisions related to transparency obligations and the protection of confidential information, clarifying how the Act balances trade secret protection with accountability requirements. In addition, we have incorporated and developed the discussion of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, highlighting its relevance for transparency, human rights, and accountability in AI governance.

 

Comment 5

 

[…] the sentence […] sounds as a sort of instruction: it could be deleted.

 

Response 5

We agree with the reviewer and have removed the indicated sentence from the manuscript.

 

Comment 6

 

[…] it should be opportune to quote institutional sources such as the High-Level Expert Group on AI […]

 

Response 6

We have incorporated references to the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (2019) issued by the High-Level Expert Group on AI, as well as additional relevant institutional sources. These references have been integrated into the discussion of AI governance and normative standards.

 

Comment 7

 

Paragraph 4 contains a subparagraph 4.1 but no other subparagraphs.

 

Response 7

 

We agree with the reviewer and have revised the structure of Section 4 to ensure internal consistency.

 

Comment 8

I suggest to increase the citation to the legal literature and to the official document to support the arguments.

 

Response 8

We agree with the reviewer and have substantially increased the number and quality of references throughout the manuscript. In particular, we have expanded engagement with legal scholarship, incorporated additional institutional and regulatory documents and ensured that all central arguments are properly supported by relevant sources.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank for increasing the quality and the numbers of the references 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the positive assessment of the work.

In response to the suggestion regarding the wording of the title, we have made a minor revision to improve its precision, clarifying that the harmonisation refers to intellectual property rules rather than intellectual property itself.

With regard to the language of the manuscript, we would like to note that the text has already been professionally revised by a specialist. As reflected in the most recent evaluation, no further concerns regarding the quality of the English were raised.

Thank you so much!