Prof. Dr. Josef Drexl
LL.M. (UC Berkeley)

Edited Works

Data Access, Consumer Interests and Public Welfare, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2021, 574 pp. (together with Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer ProtectionFederal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection et al.).

• Datenzugang kommt zentrale Bedeutung für die Datenwirtschaft und die Förderung zahlreicher Gemeinwohlbelange zu. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich der Sammelband der Herausforderung, Ansätze für zukünftige Datenzugangsregeln zu entwickeln. Die Beiträge erhellen zunächst die ökonomische sowie rechtspolitische Rechtfertigung solcher Regeln. Sodann untersuchen sie unter Berücksichtigung der verfassungsrechtlichen Vorgaben und bereits bestehender Regelungen das Potenzial unterschiedlicher Rechtsgebiete (Kartell- und Vertragsrecht, Datenschutz- und Verbraucherrecht sowie sektorspezifische Regulierung) für die Gestaltung des zukünftigen Rechtsrahmens. Dabei wird auch der Notwendigkeit Rechnung getragen, Datenzugangsregeln mit dem Immaterialgüterrecht abzustimmen und in umfassendere Maßnahmepakete (Data Governance) einzubetten. Ebenso werden Regeln zur Durchsetzung des Interesses des Staates an privaten Daten sowie Datenzugangsansprüche der Nutzer vernetzter Geräte diskutiert.
• Open Access

The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (European Intellectual Property Institutes Network series), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2019, XXV + 300 pp. (together with Anselm Kamperman Sanders).

• Intellectual property (IP) rights impact innovation in diverse ways. This book critically analyses whether additional rights beyond patents, trademarks and copyrights are needed to promote innovation. Featuring contributions from thought-leaders in the field of IP, this book examines the check and balances that already exist in the IP system to safeguard innovation and questions to what extent existing IP regimes are capable of catering to new paradigms of innovation and creativity.
  
  Taking a multi-angled view of the topic, this book questions whether IP rights by definition encourage innovation and explores the role of exceptions and limitations to IP rights as well as the application of competition law to promote innovation. Chapters analyse diverse topics within the field of IP such as plant varieties protection, geographical indications and 3D printing. Taken as a whole this book advocates that a pro-innovation rationale must be applied when new IP legislation is designed.
  
  This book will be an engaging source of information for researchers and policy-makers with an interest in the direction of IP legislation and the promotion of innovation. It will also be relevant for scholars of competition law who are seeking information on the relationship between competition and IP.

Le droit économique entre intérêts privés et intérêt public – Hommage à Laurence Boy, PUAM, Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence 2016, 374 pp. (together with Eric Balate et al.).

TRIPS plus 20 - From Trade Rules to Market Principles (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition, 25), Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin 2016, XVII + 760 pp. (together with Hanns Ullrich et al.). DOI

• Rezensiert von: Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, IIC 2017, S. 245

Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition, Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin, since 2015 (together with Reto M. Hilty).

State-initiated restraints of competition (ASCOLA Competition Law), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2015, XX + 331 pp. (together with Vicente Bagnoli).

Competition Law as Regulation (ASCOLA Competition Law Series), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Cambridge, MA 2015, XXX + 426 pp. (together with Fabiana Di Porto).

• Event: 8th ASCOLA Conference, Lecce, 2013-05-23

The Economic Characteristics of Developing Jurisdictions: Their Implications for Competition Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2015, XVII + 402 pp. (together with Mor Bakhoum et al.).

EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 20), Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg 2014, XIV + 303 pp. (together with Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Souheir Nadde-Phlix).

Pharmaceutical Innovation, Competition and Patent Law - a Trilateral Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2013, VIII + 337 pp. (together with Na Ri Lee).

Competition Policy and Regional Integration in Developing Countries, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2012, XIV + 333 pp. (together with Mor Bakhoum et al.).

MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Springer, Berlin, since 2011 (together with Reto M. Hilty).

• 2007 - 2010 unter dem Titel MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law erschienen.

More Common Ground For International Competition Law?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, XVIII + 312 pp. (together with Warren S. Grimes et al.).

Competition Policy and the Economic Approach - Foundations and Limitations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, XII + 349 pp. (together with Wolfgang Kerber, Rupprecht Podszun).

Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World. Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 6), Springer, Berlin 2009, XXX + 906 pp. (together with Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont et al.).

Technology and Competition/Technologie et concurrence. Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich/Mélanges en l'honneur de Hanns Ullrich, Larcier, Bruxelles 2009, X + 744 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

Schutz von Kreativität und Wettbewerb. Festschrift für Ulrich Loewenheim zum 75. Geburtstag, Beck, München 2009, X + 625 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

Economic Theory and Competition Law - The second ASCOLA workshop on comparative competition law (ASCOLA competition law), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2009, XIII + 269 pp. (together with Laurence Idot, Joel Monéger).

Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2008, XIX + 490 pp.

Abhandlungen zum Urheber- und Kommunikationsrecht des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht, München, Nomos, Baden-Baden, since 2007 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• 2002 - 2005 unter dem Titel Urheberrechtliche Abhandlungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht erschienen

Intellectual Property in the Conflict of Laws (Materialien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, 44), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, XVI + 269 pp. (together with Jürgen Basedow et al.).

Intellectual Property and Private International Law - Heading for the Future (IIC Studies – Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 24), Hart, Oxford 2005, XII + 371 pp. (together with Annette Kur).

Münchner Schriften zum Europäischen und Internationalen Kartellrecht/Munich series on European and international antitrust law, Stämpfli, Bern, since 2003.

The Future of Transnational Antitrust - From Comparative to Common Competition Law (Münchner Schriften zum Europäischen und Internationalen Kartellrecht, 1), Stämpfli, Bern [u.a.] 2003, 362 pp.

IIC. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Beck, München (together with William R. Cornish et al.).

Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Heymanns, Köln (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

Schriftenreihe zum Wirtschaftsrecht Lateinamerikas, Nomos, Baden-Baden (together with Sibylle Schlatter, Gerhard Schricker).

IIC Studies. Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, Hart Publ., Oxford (together with Reto M. Hilty, Joseph Straus).

GRUR International: Journal of European and International IP Law, C.H. Beck; Oxford University Press, München; Oxford 2020 - (together with Reto M. Hilty).

Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil. GRUR Int; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Beck, München, 2012 - 2019 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

Books and Monographs

Data Access and Control in the Era of Connected Devices - Study on Behalf of the European Consumer Organisation BEUC, BEUC, Brussels 2018, 168 pp.

• https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/aktuelles/aus_der_forschung/beuc-x-2018-121_data_access_and_control_in_the_area_of_connected_devices.pdf

Die wirtschaftliche Selbstbestimmung des Verbrauchers - eine Studie zum Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht unter Berücksichtigung gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Bezüge (Jus Privatum, 31), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1998, XXVII + 681 pp.

What Is Protected in a Computer Program? - Copyright Protection in the United States and Europe (IIC Studies, 15), VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinheim/New York 1994, XVI + 124 pp.

Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten des Urheberrechts im Rahmen des GATT - Inländerbehandlung, Meistbegünstigung, Maximalschutz: eine prinzipienorientierte Betrachtung im Lichte bestehender Konventionen (Münchener Universitätsschriften, 80), Beck, München 1990, XXXVI + 379 pp.

Contributions to Collected Editions, Commentaries, Handbooks and Encyclopaedias

Lessons from Intellectual Property Law for Designing Modern EU Data Law, in: Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets - Festschrift Reto M. Hilty, Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2024, 981 - 996. DOI

• The EU legislature is currently adopting a number of legal instruments to regulate the data economy. As part of this emerging data law, the legislature allocates private rights in data. There is common understanding that modern data law should promote free flow of data to increase the availability and level of use of data. However, there is less consensus on the concrete legal design of the emerging new rules. This Chapter emphasises the need to coordinate modern data law with intellectual property law and relies on principles of the latter as guidance for the design of data rights to promote innovation in the digital economy in the interest of society and to reach a fair balance of interests among different stakeholders.

The Contributions and Limitations of Competition Law to Regulate Collective Rights Management in the EU, in: Rudolf Leška (ed.), Managing Copyright – Emerging Business Models in the Individual and Collective Management of Rights, Wolters Kluwer, Prague 2022, 29 - 52.

• Event: ALAI 2019, Copyright Congress, September 18-20, 2019,, Prague, 2019-09-18

Die Kyoto Guidelines 2020 der International Law Association - Zur Reichweite des Schutzlandprinzips im Urheberkollisionsrecht, in: Ius Vivum: Kunst – Internationales – Persönlichkeit, Festschrift für Haimo Schack zum 70. Geburtstag, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2022, 123 - 135.

Data Access as a Means to Promote Consumer Interests and Public Welfare – An Introduction, in: German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (eds.), Data Access, Consumer Interests and Public Welfare, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2021, 11 - 23. DOI

The (Lack of) Coherence of Data Ownership with the Intellectual Property System, in: Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law - Essays in Honour of Annette Kur, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY; Melbourne; New Delhi; Singapore 2021, 213 - 223.

Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Franz Jürgen Säcker et al. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Band 13): Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 50-253), 8. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2021, 1041 - 1211.

Art. 6 Abs. 1 und 2 Rom II-VO (Internationales Lauterkeitsrecht), in: Franz Jürgen Säcker et al. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Band 13): Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 50-253), 8. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2021, 868 - 970.

Connected Devices – An Unfair competition Law Approach to Data Access Rights of Users, in: German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (eds.), Data Access, Consumer Interests and Public Welfare, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2021, 477 - 527. DOI

• On the European level, promoting the free flow of data and access to data has moved to the forefront of the policy goals concerning the digital economy. A particular aspect of this economy is the advent of connected devices that are increasingly deployed and used in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT). As regards these devices, the Commission has identified the particular problem that the manufacturers may try to remain in control of the data and refuse data access to third parties, thereby impeding the development of innovative business models in secondary data-related markets. To address this issue, this paper discusses potential legislation on data access rights of the users of connected devices. The paper conceives refusals of the device manufacturers to grant access to data vis-à-vis users as a form of unfair trading practice and therefore recommends embedding data access rights of users in the context of the European law against unfair competition. Such access rights would be complementary to other access regimes, including sector-specific data access rights of competitors in secondary markets as well as access rights available under contract and competition law. Against the backdrop of ongoing debates to reform contract and competition law for the purpose of enhancing data access, the paper seeks to draw attention to a so far not explored unfair competition law approach.
• Alsp published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-22

Recht und Ökonomie aus der Sicht der Rechtswissenschaften, in: Justus Haucap, Oliver Budzinski (eds.), Recht und Ökonomie (Wettbewerb und Regulierung von Märkten und Unternehmen, 37), Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, 11 - 41.

Legal Challenges of the Changing Role of Personal and Non-Personal Data in the Data Economy, in: Alberto Di Franceschi, Rainer Schulze (eds.), Digital Revolution - New Challenges for Law: Data Protection, Artificial Intelligence, Smart Products, Blockchain Technology and Virtual Currencies, C.H. Beck und Nomos, München; Baden-Baden 2019, 19 - 41.

• As a response to the growing challenges of the modern data economy, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides an advanced level of protection of the privacy interests of persons living in the EU. Yet the legal challenges of the digital economy cannot be reduced to a conflict between the economic interests of firms and the privacy interests of citizens. Internet platforms operators as well as manufacturers of connected (‘smart’) devices also provide users with new and innovative digital services that often build and depend on the processing of a large amount of personal and non-personal data collected from the users. This has given rise to a series of new legal issues that go beyond classical data protection rules, such as whether the provision of data should be considered a counter-performance in the framework of EU consumer contract law, whether there is a need for recognizing a new data ownership right and whether the legislature should adopt new rules on data portability and data access to guarantee open and competitive markets in the digital sector. With a particular focus on the question of whether such rules should be limited to personal data, this article discusses these issues against the backdrop of a comprehensive regulatory theory that integrates the personality interests of data subjects as well as broader public interest grounds as objectives that need to be taken account of in addition to the classical economic objectives of guaranteeing functioning competitive markets and enhancing innovation. While this article rejects the logic that the legislature should feel obliged to recognise an economic data ownership right of the data subjects in ‘their’ data, it argues in favour of extending the application of consumer contract rules as well data portability and data access rules to also include non-personal data. In sum, the model advocated here is one of coexistence of a generally applicable data economy law, which will have to be spelled out in more detailed, often sector-specific rules, on the one hand, and strong protection of the privacy interests in personal data under the rules of the GDPR, on the other hand.
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-23

Economic Efficiency vs. Democracy: On the Potential Role of Competition Policy in Regulating Digital Markets in Times of Post-Truth Politics, in: Damien Gerard, Ioannis Lianos (eds.), Reconciling Efficiency and Equity - A Global Challenge for Competition Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2019, 242 - 267.

• Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper
• The efficiency approach, as advocated by the Chicago School in particular, only provides a very narrow approach to competition law analysis that relies on the preferences of consumers. This approach remains especially insufficient for the regulation of firms that provide citizens with politically relevant news and information. In times of digitisation, citizens increasingly rely on news disseminated by Internet intermediaries such as Facebook, Twitter or Google for making political decisions. Such firms design their business models and their algorithms for selecting the news according to a purely economic rationale. Yet recent research indicates that dissemination of news through social platforms in particular has a negative impact on the democratic process by favouring the dissemination of false factual statements, fake news and unverifiable conspiracy theories within closed communities and, ultimately, leads to radicalisation and a division of society along political and ideological lines. Experience based on the Brexit referendum in the UK and the recent presidential elections in the US highlights the ability of populist political movements to abuse the business rationale of Internet intermediaries and the functioning of their algorithms in order to win popular votes with their ‘post-truth politics’. This article relies on competition law principles to discuss future approaches to regulating the market for political ideas at the interface of competition law and media law in the new digital age. Based on constitutional considerations the article rests on the assumption that media markets should not only provide news that responds best to the psychological predispositions and subjective beliefs of the individual citizen, but also provide correct information and diversity of opinion as a basis for making informed democratic decisions.
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-16

Internationales Lauterkeitsrecht, in: Roland Rixecker et al. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Band 12): Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 50-253), 7. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2018, 1467 - 1564.

Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Roland Rixecker et al. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Band 12): Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 50-253), 7. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2018, 1241 - 1405.

The Transplantability of the EU’s Competition Law Framework into the ASEAN Region, in: Burton Ong (ed.), The Regionalisation of Competition Law and Policy within the ASEAN Economic Community 2018, 210 - 235.

On the Future EU Legal Framework for the Digital Economy: A Competition-based Response to the ‘Ownership and Access’ Debate, in: Sebastian Lohsse, Reiner Schulze, Dirk Staudenmayer (eds.), Trading Data in the Digital Economy: Legal Concepts and Tools, Nomos and Hart, Baden-Baden and Oxford 2017, 223 - 243.

Privatrechtsdogmatik und Kartellrecht, in: Privatrechtsdogmatik im 21. Jahrhundert. Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 80. Geburtstag, De Gruyter, Berlin; Boston 2017, 1019 - 1055.

Wahrnehmungs- und Abschlusszwang im europäischen Wahrnehmungsrecht, in: Kreativität und Charakter – Recht, Geschichte und Kultur in schöpferischen Prozessen, Festschrift für Martin Vogel zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Schriftenreihe Studien zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und zum Urherberrecht, 138), Verlag Dr. Kovač, Hamburg 2017, 227 - 253.

An Institutional Perspective on the European Intellectual Property System: Will It Get Any Better?, in: Christophe Geiger (ed.), The Intellectual Property System in a Time of Change (Collection du CEIPI, 64), LexisNexis, Paris 2017, 71 - 101.

Preface, in: Hanns Ullrich et al. (ed.), TRIPS plus 20 - From Trade Rules to Market Principles (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 25), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2016, v - vii (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.). DOI

An institutional perspective on the European intellectual property system: Will it get any better?, in: Christophe Geiger (ed.), The Intellectual Property System in a Time of Change: European and International Perspectives - 50 Years of CEIPI Anniversary Volume (Collection du CEIPI, 64), LexisNexis, Paris 2016, 71 - 101.

Patent exhaustion and free transit at the interface of public health and innovation policies: lessons to be learned from EU competition law practice, in: Irene Calboli, Edward Lee (eds.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Exhaustion and Parallel Imports (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2016, 249 - 270.

La portée économique et politique du droit de la concurrence dans le secteur des médias dans les pays en développement, in: Le droit économique entre intérêts privés et intérêt général - Hommage à Laurence Boy, PUAM, Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence 2016, 106 - 125.

Einheitlicher Patentschutz durch Kollisionsrecht, in: Rechtsdurchsetzung - Rechtsverwirklichung durch materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht. Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Ahrens zum 70. Geburtstag, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln 2016, 165 - 179.

Consumer actions after the adoption of the EU Directive on damage claims for competition law infringements, in: Luigi Ubertazzi (ed.), AIDA – Anali italiani del diritto di autore, della cultura e dello spettacolo 2015, Guiffrè, Mailand 2016, 126 - 153.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 15-10
• In line with primary EU competition law, the new Damages Directive 2014/104/EU aims to provide all victims of competition law violations with a right to compensation. This includes consumers who often suffer harm at the very end of the supply chain. This article analyses the impact of this Directive on consumer redress. Thereby, it identifies a tension built into the Directive between the public interest in enhancing the respect of competition law, on the one hand, and the private interest in compensating the victims of anti-competitive conduct, on the other hand. By concentrating the right to claim damages on the — direct or indirect — purchaser who ultimately had to pay the overcharge, the Directive runs the risk that infringers of competition law will escape private enforcement actions in cases where this overcharge was passed down to final consumers who, especially in mass damage cases, will not have sufficient incentives to bring individual damage claims to the courts. This problem is aggravated by the fact that the Damages Directive itself does not provide for any collective redress mechanisms. Rather, in 2013, the Commission decided to address that issue only through adopting the non-binding Collective Redress Recommendation. Thereby, the Commission recommends avoiding all the features that make up the so-called ‘toxic cocktail’ of US class actions. Yet past experience and most recent reforms in some Member States seem to indicate that pure systems of opt-in collective redress mechanisms will not significantly contribute to private enforcement of competition law. Indeed, for the time being, experimenting with different national systems is the best approach to identifying the best system of collective redress for competition law cases.
• Available at SSRN

The interaction of private and public enforcement in European competition law, in: Hans-W. Micklitz, Andrea Wechsler (eds.), The Transformation of Enforcement—European Economic Law in Global Perspective, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2016, 135 - 159.

Regulierung der Cyberwelt – Aus dem Blickwinkel des internationalen Wirtschaftsrechts, in: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht (ed.), Freiheit und Regulierung in der Cyberwelt – Rechtsidentifikation zwischen Quelle und Gericht (Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht, 47), C.F. Müller Verlag, Heidelberg 2016, 95 - 158.

The concept of trade-relatedness in times of post-TRIPS bilateralism, in: Hanns Ullrich et al. (ed.), TRIPS plus 20 – From Trade Rules to Market Principles (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 25), Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin 2016, 53 - 83. DOI

• In 1994, by concluding the TRIPS Agreement as part of the new WTO system, states recognized the “trade-relatedness” of IPRs. Yet scholars have so far given very little attention to this concept. This chapter identifies three aspects of this idea, namely (1) as a legal concept, (2) as an economic justification for more advanced international IP standards, and (3) as a political strategy. During the last decade, this concept also migrated to many bilateral trade agreements in which “TRIPS-plus” standards were included. This development not only confirmed and strengthened the trade-relatedness of IPRs, it also requires a reassessment of the concept in order to judge the appropriateness of IP bilateralism. Indeed, the main research question of this chapter relates to the soundness of combining IP rules with trade rules. Whether this combination makes economic sense can be critically reviewed in the light of several considerations of economic theory. This economic analysis shows how the international IP system, starting with TRIPS and continuing with bilateral trade agreements, had to develop towards an inefficient expansion of IP protection. From the perspective of 2014, the conclusion is that the strategy to use trade concessions as a bargaining chip for higher IP standards for the purpose of promoting the competitiveness of technologically more advanced countries has not produced the expected results. The chapter strongly argues for reconsidering the current trade policy of technologically more advanced countries to push through ever-higher levels of protection in various forms of trade agreements.

Consumer welfare and consumer harm: adjusting competition law and policies to the needs of developing jurisdic, in: Michal S. Gal et al. (ed.), The Economic Characteristics of Developing Jurisdictions – Their Implications for Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2015, 265 - 295.

Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht (IntImmGR), in: Roland Rixecker, Franz Jürgen Säcker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Band 11): Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Art. 25-248 EGBGB, 6. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2015, 1219 - 1361.

Internationales Lauterkeitsrecht (IntLautR), in: Roland Rixecker, Franz Jürgen Säcker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (Band 11): Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Art. 25-248 EGBGB, 6. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2015, 1133 - 1217.

Les règlements amiables de type « pay-for-delay »: plaidoyer pour une réforme du système réglementaire des brevets pharmaceutiques en Europe, in: Droit, économie et valeurs – Hommage à Bernard Remiche (Droit économie international), Larcier, Brüssel 2015, 413 - 437.

Déséquilibres économiques et droit de la concurrence, in: Laurence Boy (ed.), Les déséquilibres économiques et le droit de l’économie (Droit économie international), Larcier, Brüssel 2015, 33 - 47.

• Event: Colloque organisé par le GREDECO-GREDEG, Groupe de recherche en Droit, eéconomie et gestion, Université Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, 2013-02-07

The European Unitary Patent System: On the 'Unconstitutional' Misuse of Conflict-of-Law Rules, in: Zwischenbilanz – Festschrift für Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Gieseking-Verlag, Bielefeld 2015, 361 - 374.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 15-01
• On 18 November 2014, Advocate General Bot delivered his opinion on the Spanish action against Regulation No. 1257/2012 on Unitary Patent Protection. Among other things, Spain claims that the Regulation is not capable of guaranteeing unitary patent protection as required by Article 118(1) TFEU since, pursuant to the conflict-of-law rule contained in Article 5(3), it leaves this question to the national law of the participating Member States. AG Bot rejected this claim by arguing that, under the EU principle of sincere cooperation, the participating Member States are under an obligation to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, which contains uniform rules on the scope of such patents. The legislative history shows that most of the substantive patent law provisions that were included in the Commission Proposal for the UPP Regulation were ultimately transferred to the UPC Agreement as part of a political compromise that attempts to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for these rules. Hence, following the reasoning of AG Bot, the conflict-of-law rule of Article 5(3) is not designed to solve a conflict of laws, but only aims to insulate the UPC Agreement against claims that its uniform substantive patent law provisions are nevertheless part of EU law and, therefore, ought to be interpreted by the CJEU. This, however, gives rise to three constitutional concerns that are not addressed by AG Bot, namely, (1) a conflict with the principle of democracy as a fundamental value of the Union, (2) a circumvention of the fundamental rights of the European Union, which would otherwise guide the interpretation of the substantive patent law provisions, and (3) a curtailment of effective judicial control as an expression of the rule of law. In sum, the opinion of AG Bot comes as a clear disappointment and should not be followed by the CJEU.
• Available at SSRN

The Competition Dimension of the European Regulation of Public Sector Information and the Concept of an Undertaking, in: Josef Drexl, Vicente Bagnoli (eds.), State-Initiated Restraints of Competition (ASCOLA competition law), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2015, 64 - 100.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-03
• In 2013, the European legislature revised the Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive of 2003. The PSI Directive strives to make information collected by public sector bodies in the framework of their public tasks available for commercial re-use by private undertakings for the provision of added-value information services. Whereas, in 2003, the European legislature aimed to set first incentives to overcome resistance of public sector bodies to make data accessible for re-use, ten years later many Member States have developed open-data policies that are designed to make PSI available to the public free of charge. The revision of 2013 takes account of this evolution by integrating the former re-use policy into a larger open-data policy. This article assesses the evolution of the European framework for the regulation of PSI from a competition-oriented perspective. Thereby, it also critically reviews the Compass judgement of 2012 in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) limited the scope of EU competition law to the re-use of PSI by adopting a narrow approach to the concept of an ‘undertaking’.
• Available at SSRN

Zur Anwendung des kartellrechtlichen Diskriminierungsverbots bei Immaterialgüterrechten: Die Entscheidung des BGH in "Elektronischer Programmführer", in: Festschrift für Joachim Bornkamm zum 65. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 131 - 147.

Droit de la concurrence et propriété intellectuelle à l'ère du numérique, in: Martine Tochais-Behar, Nicolas Charbit, Rafael Amaro (eds.), A quoi sert la concurrence?, Institut de droit de la concurrence, Paris 2014, 485 - 492.

Wettbewerbswidrige Lizenzgebühren: Ein Plädoyer für eine "teilweise" Rückbesinnung auf die Inhaltstheorie, in: Festschrift für Helmut Köhler zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 85 - 100.

Intellectual Property and Implementation of Recent Bilateral Trade Agreements in the EU, in: Josef Drexl, Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Souheir Nadde-Phlix (eds.), EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 20), Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg 2014, 265 - 350. DOI

• The European Union has concluded – and still is in the process of negotiating – a number of bilateral trade agreements with extensive provisions on intellectual property rights that partially go beyond what is required by the WTO/TRIPS Agreement (so-called ‘TRIPS-plus standards’). These agreements include the Economic Partnership Agreement with the CARIFORUM States, the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea, the Association Agreement with Central America and the Trade Agreement with Columbia and Peru. There is a general assumption that these agreements only oblige the other contracting parties to change their IP laws, whilst there is no need for the EU to take any implementation measures. This article questions this later assumption by analysing, in particular, the rules of these agreements on criminal sanctions, genetic resources, transfer of technology and competition law and the general principles on the enhancement of sustainable development.
• Available at SSRN

Collective Management of Copyrights and the EU Principle of Free Movement of Services after the OSA Judgment - In Favour of a More Balance Approach, in: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation: Liber Amicorum for Hans Micklitz (Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, 3), Springer, Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London 2014, 459 - 487. DOI

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No.14-06
• On 20 February 2014, the Council of the European Union has adopted the new Directive on Collective Rights Management. In its Proposal for this Directive, the Commission argued that cross-border collective rights management services are liberalised pursuant to Article 16 of the Services Directive of 2006. Yet, only one week after the adoption of the new Directive, this view was rejected by the Court of Justice of the EU in the OSA judgment. This paper analyses the relationship between the principle of free movement of services and national sector-specific regulation of CMOs in more detail in order to explore to which extent the principle of free movement of services and the need for specific rules for collective management of copyrights could be better coordinated in the future.
• Available at SSRN

Section 3:301: Transferability, in: European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) (ed.), Conflict of laws in intellectual property - the CLIP principles and commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013, 254 - 259.

Section 3:201: Initial Ownership, in: European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) (ed.), Conflict of laws in intellectual property - the CLIP principles and commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013, 236 - 253.

AstraZeneca and the EU Sector Inquiry: When Do Patent Filings Violate Competition Law?, in: Josef Drexl, Na Ri Lee (eds.), Pharmaceutical Innovation, Competition and Patent Law - a Trilateral Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2013, 290 - 322.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper ; No. 12-02
• In its Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Report of 2009, the European Commission identified ‘defensive patent strategies’ as a potential anti-competitive abuse in the sense of Article 102 TFEU. Such strategies include in particular patent filings that may delay the market entry of generic drugs or obstruct innovation activity of other originator companies. Yet the Report refrains from a an in-depth legal analysis of such behaviour. With the objective of clarifying the legal implications of the Sector Inquiry Report, the article analyses the AstraZeneca judgment of the General Court of 2010 as a precedent for assessing the anti-competitive character of patent filings under EU competition law. Thereby, it is argued that patent law does not insulate filings against competition-law liability. Yet the judgment, which is limited to ‘static’ price competition between originator companies and generics producers, does not provide sufficient guidance for analysing harm to ‘dynamic’ competition in innovation among originator companies. In this regard, the article advocates a cautious approach, according to which a violation of EU competition law requires anti-competitive intent for which the party arguing a violation should carry the burden of proof. The article also refers to the Boehringer case, which was settled by the Commission in Summer 2011, after Boehringer agreed to give up its allegedly anti-competitive blocking patents.
• Available at SSRN

EU Competition Law and Parallel Trade in Pharmaceuticals: Lessons to be Learned for WTO/TRIPS?, in: Jan Rosén (ed.), Intellectual Property at the Crossroads of Trade (ATRIP Intellectual Property), EdwardElgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2012, 3 - 24.

Comment identifier des pools anticoncurrentiels: Regards transatlantiques et institutionnels, in: I.R.P.I. - Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle Henri-Desbois (ed.), Propriété intellectuelle et concurrence: Pour une (ré)conciliation (Le Droit des affaires: propriété intellectuelle, 40), LexisNexis, Paris 2012, 51 - 83.

Counterfeiting and the spare parts issue, in: Christophe Geiger (ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property - A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property Series ), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2012, 369 - 385.

Rechtsharmonisierung mit punktuell eigenständigen Lösungen als Weg zur optimalen Wettbewerbspolitik, in: Roger Zäch, Rolf H. Weber, Andreas Heinemann (eds.), Revision des Kartellgesetzes - Kritische Würdigung der Botschaft 2012 durch Zürcher Kartellrechtler, Dike Verlag, Zürich / St. Gallen 2012, 11 - 43.

Economic Integration and Competition Law in Developing Countries, in: Josef Drexl et al. (ed.), Competition Policy and Regional Integration in Developing Countries, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2012, 231 - 252.

Refusal to Grant Access to Trade Secrets as an Abuse of Market Dominance, in: Steven Anderman, Ariel Ezrachi (eds.), Intellectual Property and Competition Law - New Frontiers, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011, 165 - 185.

Intellectual Property in Competition: How to Promote Dynamic Competition as a Goal, in: Josef Drexl et al. (ed.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, 210 - 229.

Deutsche Verwertungsgesellschaften im europäischen Wettbewerb, in: Tilo Gerlach, Guido Evers (eds.), 50 Jahre GVL - 50 Jahre kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung der Leistungsschutzrechte, De Gruyter, Berlin und New York 2011, 11 - 28.

On the (a)political character of the economic approach to competition law, in: Josef Drexl, Wolfgang Kerber, Rupprecht Podszun (eds.), Competition policy and the economic approach - foundations and limitations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, 312 - 336.

Immaterialgüterrechte zwischen Innovationsförderung durch Monopole und Wettbewerbsbeschränkung, in: Forschungsinstitut für Wirtschaftsverfassung und Wettbewerb, Köln (ed.), Innovation und Wettbewerb - Referate des XLII. FIW-Symposions, Heymanns, Köln 2010, 21 - 50.

• Event: Innovation und Wettbewerb, Innsbruck, 2009-02-25

Pay-for-Delay - Zur kartellrechtlichen Beurteilung streitbeilegender Vereinbarungen bei Pharma-Patenten, in: Dieter Stauder, Stefan Abel, Thomas Friede (eds.), Sektoruntersuchung Pharma der Europäischen Kommission - kartellrechtliche Disziplinierung des Patentsystems? - Symposium, 17. Juli 2009, München, Vorträge und Materialien, Heymanns, Köln 2010, 13 - 28.

• Event: Symposium der Kanzlei Bardehle Pagenberg - "Sektoruntersuchung Pharma der Europäischen Kommission - Kartellrechtliche Disziplinierung des Patentsystems?", München, 2009-07-17

Quelques regards sur l'impact social du passage de l'économie informelle à l'économie formelle, in: Grégoire Bakandeja wa Mpungu, Bernard Remiche (eds.), D’une économie populaire à une économie fiscalisée, Larcier, Brüssel 2010, 193 - 199.

Ronald Dworkin, ökonomische Effizienz und das Kartellrecht, in: Wettbewerbspolitik und Kartellrecht in der Marktwirtschaft - 50 Jahre FIW: 1960 bis 2010; Festschrift, Heymanns, Köln 2010, 175 - 192.

Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Roland Rixecker, Franz Jürgen Säcker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. 11: Internationales Privatrecht, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 25 - 248), 5. ed., C. H. Beck, München 2010, 1344 - 1491.

Internationales Recht gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, in: Roland Rixecker, Franz Jürgen Säcker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. 11: Internationales Privatrecht, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 25 - 248), 5. ed., C. H. Beck, München 2010, 1249 - 1343.

Zum Verhältnis von lauterkeits- und kartellrechtlicher Anknüpfung nach der Rom II-VO, in: Festschrift für Klaus J. Hopt zum 70. Geburtstag am 24. August 2010 - Unternehmen, Markt und Verantwortung, Bd. 2, De Gruyter, Berlin; New York 2010, 2713 - 2732.

Competition Law as Part of the European Constitution, in: Armin von Bogdandy, Jürgen Bast (eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2. ed., Hart, Oxford 2010, 659 - 698.

In Favor of a Multi-Track Copyright System, in: Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Harry First, Diane L. Zimmermann (eds.), Working within the boundaries of intellectual property, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010, 157 - 176.

Healing with bananas - How should Community competition law deal with restraints on parallel trade in pharmaceuticals?, in: Technology and Competition - Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich, Larcier, Brüssel 2009, 571 - 599.

Die Verweigerung der Offenlegung von Unternehmensgeheimnissen als Missbrauch marktbeherrschender Stellung, in: Schutz von Kreativität und Wettbewerb - Festschrift für Ulrich Loewenheim zum 75. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2009, 437 - 455.

Wettbewerbsverfassung, in: Armin von Bogdandy, Jürgen Bast (eds.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, Springer, Berlin 2009, 905 - 958.

Zwischen Konsolidierung des Verbraucherschutzrechts, Gemeinsamem Referenzrahmen und Kartellrecht: Auf der Suche nach einem Leitbild für die europäische Privatrechtsgesellschaft, in: Perspektiven des Privatrechts am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts - Festschrift für Dieter Medicus zum 80. Geburtstag, Heymanns, Köln 2009, 67 - 87.

Le droit de la concurrence international, menace ou gardien des droits de l'homme?, in: Laurence Boy, Jean-Baptiste Racine, Fabrice Siiriainen (eds.), Droit économique et droits de l'homme, Larcier, Brüssel 2009, 335 - 359.

Deceptive Conduct in the Patent World - A Case for US Antitrust and EU Competition Law?, in: Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World. Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus (MPI studies on intellectual property, competition and tax law, 6), Springer, Berlin 2009, 137 - 156.

Mehr oder weniger Verbraucherschutz durch Europäisches Lauterkeitsrecht?, in: Reto M. Hilty, Frauke Henning-Bodewig (eds.), Lauterkeitsrecht und Acquis Communautaire (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 14), Springer, Berlin 2009, 227 - 252.

Intellectual property and competition: Sketching a competition-oriented reform of TRIPs, in: Festskrift till Marianne Levin, Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm 2008, 261 - 280.

The Relationship Between the Legal Exclusivity and Economic Market Power. Links and Limits, in: Inge Govaere, Hanns Ullrich (eds.), Intellectual Property, Market Power and the Public Interest (College of Europe studies, 8), Lang, Brüssel 2008, 13 - 33.

Intellectual Property Rights as Constituent Elements of a Competition-based Market Economy, in: Gustavo Ghidini, Luis Mariano Genovesi (eds.), Intellectual Property and Market Power. ATRIP Papers 2006-2007, Eudeba, Buenos Aires 2008, 167 - 178.

IP in Bilateral Trade Agreements. Some Ideas on How They Promote Market Power and Distort International Competition, in: Gustavo Ghidini, Luis Mariano Genovesi (eds.), Intellectual Property and Market Power. ATRIP Papers 2006 - 2007, Eudeba, Buenos Aires 2008, 525 - 540.

Is There a ‘More Economic Approach’ to Intellectual Property and Competition Law?, in: Josef Drexl (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2008, 27 - 53.

The Digitisation of Literary and Musical Realisation - General Report, in: Katharina Boele-Woelki, Sjef van Erp (eds.), General Reports of the XVIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Bruylant and Eleven International Publishing, Brüssel and Utrecht 2007, 547 - 585 (together with Silke von Lewinski).

Zur Schadensersatzberechtigung unmittelbarer und mittelbarer Abnehmer im europäisierten Kartelldeliktsrecht, in: Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 70. Geburtstag, Bd. I, C.H. Beck, München 2007, 1339 - 1365.

Responding to the Challenges for Development with a Competition-Oriented Approach, in: Josef Drexl et al. (ed.), Views on the Future of the Intellectual Property System (Selected Issue Briefs, 1), ICTSD, Genf 2007, 17 - 24.

Rapport de l'atelier "Intérêt général et brevet", in: Bernard Remiche (ed.), Brevet, innovation et intérêt général. Le Brevet: pourquoi et pour faire quoi?, Larcier, Brüssel 2007, 549 - 563.

L'évolution des aspects des droits de la propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (ADPIC): vers un système multilatéral flexible, in: Bernard Remiche, Jorge Kors (eds.), L'accord ADPIC. Regards croisés Europe-Amerique latine. Dix ans après (Droit économique international), Larcier, Brüssel 2007, 13 - 45.

Le droit de la gestion collective en Allemagne après la recommendation européenne sur la gestion collective des droits en ligne dans le domaine musical, in: Reto M. Hilty, Christophe Geiger (eds.), Impulse für eine europäische Harmonisierung des Urheberrechts/Perspectives d'harmonisation du droit d'auteur en Europe (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2), Springer, Berlin 2007, 399 - 430.

Das Recht der Verwertungsgesellschaften in Deutschland nach Erlass der Kommissionsempfehlung über die kollektive Verwertung von Online-Musikrechten, in: Reto M. Hilty, Christophe Geiger (eds.), Impulse für eine europäische Harmonisierung des Urheberrechts/Perspectives d'harmonisation du droit d'auteur en Europe (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2), Springer, Berlin 2007, 369 - 398.

Die Zusammenschlusskontrolle in einem zukünftigen internationalen Kartellrecht, in: Luboš Tichý (ed.), Fúze akvizice v českém, evropském a německém právu/Mergers and Acquisitions im tschechischen, europäischen und deutschen Recht (Universitas Carolina / Facultas Iuridica. Sborníky, 31), Universitas Carolina Facultas iuridicas, Prag 2007, 167 - 204.

Abuse of Dominance in Licensing and Refusal to License - A ’More Economic Approach’ to Competition by Imitation and to Competition by Substitution, in: Claus Dieter Ehlermann, Isabela Atansiu (eds.), The Interaction between Competition Law and IP Law (European competition law annual, 2005), Hart Publishing, Oxford 2007, 647 - 664.

Constitutional Protection of Authors’ Moral Rights in the European Union - Between Privacy, Property and the Regulation of the Economy, in: Katja S. Ziegler (ed.), Human Rights and Private Law. Privacy as Autonomy (Studies of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law, 5), Hart Publishing, Oxford 2007, 159 - 176.

Competition in the Field of Collective Management: Preferring 'Creative Competition' to Allocative Efficiency in European Copyright Law, in: Paul Torremans (ed.), Copyright Law. A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2007, 255 - 282.

Geistiges Eigentum als integraler Bestandteil der europäischen Wettbewerbsordnung, in: Forschungsinstitut für Wirtschaftsverfassung und Wettbewerb <Köln> (ed.), Wettbewerb in einem größeren Europa. Referate des XXXIX. FIW-Symposions (FIW-Schriftenreihe, 215), Heymanns, Köln 2007, 79 - 105.

Internationales Recht gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, in: Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. 11: Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche; (Art. 50-245), 4. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2006, 746 - 811.

Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. 11: Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche; (Art. 50-245), 4. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2006, 812 - 897.

Le juge de droit commun, juge de la concurrence: réalité des obstacles et adéquations des pouvoirs? La situation en Allemagne, in: Laurence Idot, Catherine Prieto (eds.), Les entreprises face au nouveau droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles. Le règlement no. 1/2003 modifie-t-il les stratégies contentieuses? (Collection Droit de l'Union européenne: Colloques, 3), Bruylant, Brüssel 2006, 141 - 156.

La brevettabilità delle biotecnologie, in: Elena Sciso (ed.), L'OMC 1995-2005 – Bilanci e prospettive, LUISS Univ. Press, Roma 2006, 37 - 56.

Auf dem Weg zu einer neuen europäischen Marktordnung für die kollektive Wahrnehmung von Online-Rechten der Musik - Kritische Würdigung der Kommissionsempfehlung vom 18. Oktober 2005, in: Karl Riesenhuber (ed.), Wahrnehmungsrecht in Polen und Deutschland. INTERGU-Tagung 2005 (Schriften zum europäischen Urheberrecht, 1), de Gruyter, Berlin 2006, 193 - 242.

Europäisierung und Ökonomisierung des deutschen Kartellrechts, in: Klaus J. Hopt, Dimitris Tzouganatos (eds.), Europäisierung des Handels- und Wirtschaftsrechts. Gemeinsame oder unterschiedliche Probleme für das deutsche und griechische Recht? (Beiträge zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, 82), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2006, 223 - 264.

Gestaltungsansätze für eine internationale Wettbewerbspolitik – Handlungsanregungen für das weitere Vorgehen, in: Peter Oberender (ed.), Internationale Wettbewerbspolitik, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2006, 41 - 72.

Competition Law as Part of the European Constitution, in: Armin von Bogdandy, Jürgen Bast (eds.), Principles of European Constitutional Law (Modern studies in European law, 8), Hart, Oxford 2006, 633 - 674.

Droit d'auteur et information scientifique - Analyse concurrentielle, protection des bases de données et perspective allemande, in: La propriété intellectuelle en question(s) – Regards croisés européens (Le droit des affaires, 27), Litec, Paris 2006, 73 - 84.

Kontrola fúzí v budoucím mezinárodním kartelovém právu, in: Luboš Tichý (ed.), Fúze a akvizice v českém, evropském a německém právu, Univerzita Karlova v Praze - Právnická fakulta, Praha 2006, 46 - 76.

Diritto d'autore in ambiente digitale: dall'efficienza "economica" all'efficienza "normativa", in: Maria Lillà Montagnani, Maurizio Borghi (eds.), Proprietà digitale - Diritti d'autore, nuove tecnologie e digital rights management (Collana di diritto dell'economia, 6), Egea, Mailand 2006, 53 - 70.

La evolución de los ADPIC: Hacia un sistema multilateral flexible, in: Bernard Remiche, Jorge Kors (eds.), Propiedad intelectual y tecnología - el acuerdo ADPIC diez años después: visión europea y latinoamericana, La Ley, Buenos Aires 2006, 3 - 26.

The Critical Role of Competition Law in Preserving Public Goods in Conflict with IP Rights, in: Keith Maskus, Jerome H. Reichman (eds.), International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime. Papers from the Conference on International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, held at Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina on 24 - 26 April 2003, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 2005, 709 - 725.

• Event: International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Durham, 2003-04-24

Which Law Protects Consumers and Competition in Conflict with Intellectual Property Rights?, in: Jürgen Basedow et al. (ed.), Intellectual Property in the Conflict of Laws (Materialien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, 44), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, 79 - 106.

Die gemeinschaftsrechtliche Pflicht zur einheitlichen richtlinienkonformen Auslegung hybrider Rechtsnormen und deren Grenzen, in: Festschrift für Andreas Heldrich zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2005, 67 - 86.

Rome II – European Choice of Law in the Field of Intellectual Property Law, in: Josef Drexl, Annette Kur (eds.), Intellectual Property and Private International Law. Heading for the Future (IIC studies, 24), Hart, Oxford 2005, 151 - 176.

Der Anspruch der Werkschöpfer und ausübenden Künstler auf angemessene Vergütung in der europäischen Wettbewerbsordnung, in: Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts. Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2005, 651 - 670.

Wege zu einer internationalen Wettbewerbspolitik, in: Monopolkommission (ed.), Zukunftsperspektiven der Wettbewerbspolitik. Colloquium anläßlich des 30-jährigen Bestehens der Monopolkommission am 5. November 2004 in der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2005, 49 - 70.

Nationales Sozialrecht und Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, in: Ulrich Becker, Wolfgang Schön (eds.), Steuer- und Sozialstaat im europäischen Systemwettbewerb, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, 171 - 186.

Lex americana ante portas – Zur extraterritorialen Anwendung nationalen Urheberrechts, in: Urheberrecht im Informationszeitalter. Festschrift für Wilhelm Nordemann zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2004, 429 - 446.

Zwingendes Recht als Strukturprinzip des Europäischen Verbrauchervertragsrechts?, in: Privatrecht in Europa. Vielfalt, Kollision, Kooperation. Festschrift für Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2004, 771 - 790.

Wissenszurechnung im unabhängigen und Konzernunternehmen - Zivil-, gesellschafts- und bankrechtliche Überlegungen, in: Neues Schuldrecht und Bankgeschäfte - Wissenszurechnung bei Kreditinstituten. Bankrechtstag 2002 (Schriftenreihe der Bankrechtlichen Vereinigung, 20), de Gruyter, Berlin 2003, 85 - 119.

• Event: Bankrechtstag 2002, Leipzig

Wettbewerbsverfassung - Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht als materielles Verfassungsrecht, in: Armin von Bogdandy (ed.), Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Theoretische und dogmatische Grundzüge (Springer-Lehrbuch), Springer, Berlin 2003, 747 - 802.

Do We Need "Courage" for International Antitrust Law? Choosing Between International and Supranational Law Principles of Enforcement, in: Josef Drexl (ed.), The Future of Transnational Antitrust - From Comparative to Common Competition Law (Münchner Schriften zum Europäischen und Internationalen Kartellrecht, 1), Stämpfli, Bern 2003, 311 - 341.

Evolving toward What? The Development of International Antitrust. Comments on Harry First, in: Josef Drexl (ed.), The Future of Transnational Antitrust - From Comparative to Common Competition Law (Münchner Schriften zum Europäischen und Internationalen Kartellrecht, 1), Staempfli & Kluwer Law International, Bern 2003, 53 - 61.

WTO und Privatrecht, in: Claus Ott, Hans-Bernd Schäfer (eds.), Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsräumen. Beiträge zum VIII. Travemünder Symposium zur Ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts (13. - 16. März 2002), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2002, 333 - 364.

• Event: Travemünder Symposium zur Ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts, Travemünde, 2002-03-13

Verbraucherschutz und Electronic Commerce in Europa, in: Michael Lehmann (ed.), Electronic Business in Europa. Internationales, europäisches und deutsches Online-Recht, Beck, München 2002, 473 - 525.

Verbraucherrecht - Allgemeines Privatrecht - Handelsrecht, in: Peter Schlechtriem (ed.), Wandlungen des Schuldrechts (Schriften der Ernst von Caemmerer-Gedächtnisstiftung, 5), Nomos, Baden-Baden 2002, 97 - 151.

Continuing Contract Law Harmonisation under the White Paper of 1985? - Between Minimum Harmonisation, Mutual Recognition, Conflict of Laws, and Uniform Law, in: Stefan Grundmann, Jules Styck (eds.), An Academic Green Paper on European Contract Law (Private law in European context series, 2), Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2002, 103 - 129.

Dienstleistungen und geistiges Eigentum: Die Bedeutung der neuen Welthandelsorganisation für Entwicklungsländer, in: Gesellschaft für Internationale Entwicklung München; Forschungsstelle Gottstein in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (ed.), GATT und die Folgen, München 1994, 25 - 61.

Bereicherungsrecht, in: Wolfgang Fikentscher (ed.), Schuldrecht (De Gruyter-Lehrbuch), 8. ed., de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 1992, 661 - 714.

Journal Articles

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 2 May 2023 on the Implementation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), GRUR Int 72, 9 (2023), 864 - 875 (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego et al.).

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-11

Der EU Data Act und das Immaterialgüterrecht, VPP-Rundbrief 4 (2022), 14 - 28.

Vertrauenssache, Akademie Aktuell - Zeitschrift der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2021.1 (2021), 20 - 23.

• https://badw.de/fileadmin/pub/akademieAktuell/2021/73/AA2101_20_Drexl.pdf

The New GRUR International, GRUR Int 69, 1 (2020), 1 - 2 (together with Reto M. Hilty). DOI

Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und Recht im digitalen Wandel, Jahrbuch / Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften 2019 (2020), 93 - 103.

Die Reparaturklausel im Designrecht: Eine wettbewerbs- und immaterialgüterrechtlich gebotene Reform, GRUR 122, 3 (2020), 234 - 248.

Politics, digital innovation, intellectual property and the future of competition law, Concurrences Review 4 (2019), 2 - 5.

IoT Connectivity Standards: How Adaptive is the Current SEP Regulatory Framework?, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 135 - 156 (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego). DOI

• The Internet of Things is advancing as a new technological paradigm with enormous economic and societal implications. Network connectivity provides the basis. With this in mind, past and current conflicts surrounding the licensing and enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector cast a shadow over IoT development. Focusing on the European approach based on competition law, this article explores the extent to which the existing legal framework, which has been mainly developed against the backdrop of problems in the mobile industry, will be capable of responding adequately to the challenges raised by the IoT.

Foreword to the 50th Volume, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 1 - 3 (together with Reto M. Hilty). DOI

Joseph Straus zum 80. Geburtstag, GRUR Int 67, 12 (2018), 1109 - 1112 (together with Reto M. Hilty).

Bedrohung der Meinungsvielfalt durch Algorithmen - Wie weit reichen die Mittel der Medienregulierung?, ZUM 61, 7 (2017), 529 - 543.

Neue Regeln für die Europäische Datenwirtschaft? Ein Plädoyer für einen wettbewerbspolitischen Ansatz - Teil 1, NZKart - Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 5, 7 (2017), 339 - 344.

Neue Regeln für die Europäische Datenwirtschaft? Ein Plädoyer für einen wettbewerbspolitischen Ansatz - Teil 2, NZKart - Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 5, 8 (2017), 415 - 421.

Designing Competitive Markets for Industrial Data - Between Propertisation and Access, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 8, 4 (2017), 257 - 292.

• As part of the project to establish a Digital Single Market the European Commission has launched a ‘Free Flow of Data’ initiative. This initiative is meant to enhance the growth potential of the emerging data economy, which is characterised by the digitisation of production (smart factories) and the advent of digitised products such as smart — driverless — cars or smart wearables that will be able to communicate with each other and the environment through the Internet of Things. Furthermore, the enormous amount of data generated and controlled by the industry could serve as a most valuable input for other new data-driven services and for applications in the public interest such as the operation of smart cities, smart and resource-efficient farming or measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Obviously, this new data economy has to rely on the commercialisation of data. But what kind of regulation is needed in order to make the data economy work? Do we need new ownership rights in data? Or should regulation focus on access in order to make data as widely available as possible? The European Commission is currently working on a Communication to provide answers to these questions by January 2017. This article tries to assist the Commission by working on a pro-competitive framework for issues of both ownership and access. In so doing, this article undertakes two things: first, it analyses to what extent intellectual property laws already provide control over data and then discusses the need and justification for introducing new rules on data ownership. Second, it analyses whether EU competition law already provides remedies to promote access to data and furthermore explores whether and under which conditions introduction of new access regimes would be advisable. This article is to be considered as on-going research. It is only made available online. A later publication will take into account the Commission Communication expected for January 2017.
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-13

European and International Intellectual Property Law between Propertization and Regulation: How a Fundamental-Rights Approach Can Mitigate the Tension, The University of the Pacific Law Review 47, 2 (2016), 199 - 219.

Wolfgang Fikentscher zum Gedenken, GRUR Int 64, 6 (2015), 517 - 519.

Standard-setting organizations and processes: Challenges and opportunities for competition and innovation – Introduction, Concurrences No. 3 (2015) (together with Atilano Jorge Padilla, James Killick).

• http://www.concurrences.com/Journal/Issues/No-3-2015/Doctrines-1765/Standard-setting-organizations-and-74830?lang=fr

Competition Law in Media Markets and its Contribution to Democracy – A Global Perspective, World competition 38, 3 (2015), 367 - 393.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-16
• Beyond regulating markets, competition law also has a political dimension. This is especially the case in media markets, where competition policy may produce particular trade-offs for the development of democracy. Yet it is a different question whether competition law enforcement should take democracy into account as a goal and, even more so, whether this goal should influence the analytical framework for applying competition law. By putting a focus on emerging and developing economies, this article answers this question in the affirmative. It thereby builds on a recent study conducted for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the application of competition laws around the world to copyright-related markets. Whereas, in the past, the interface of competition law and democracy was mostly discussed with regard to media mergers, an analysis of some unilateral conduct cases shows that the ‘democratic goal’ can argue either for or against intervention. Yet promoting the goal of democracy will not conflict with an economics-based analysis of competition law if, based on an evolutionary concept of competition, enforcers promote diversity of content and ideas in copyright-related media markets. In addition, the article highlights the need of independent agencies to guarantee credibility of competition law enforcement in media markets.
• Available at SSRN

Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements, IIC 44, 8 (2013), 878 - 883 (together with Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan et al.). DOI

• For several years, research at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual
  Property and Competition Law (MPI) - in collaboration with experts from all over
  the world - has examined the trend of bilateral and regional agreements that
  include provisions on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP)
  rights. By building on this research, the following principles
  – express core concerns regarding the use of IP provisions as a bargaining chip in
  international trade negotiations, the increasing comprehensiveness of international IP
  rules and the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the negotiating process; and
  – recommend international rules and procedures that can achieve a better,
  mutually advantageous and balanced regulation of international IP.
  These principles emanate from several consultations within the MPI and especially
  from a workshop that was held with external experts in October 2012 in Munich,
  Germany. They represent the views of those first signatories and are open to
  signature by scholars who share the objectives of the Principles.
• Institutswebsite

Anti-Competitive Stumbling Stones on the Way to a Cleaner World: Protecting Competition in Innovation without a Market, Journal of Competition Law and Economics 8, 3 (2012), 507 - 543. DOI

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-08
• Available at SSRN

The Exclusion of "Public Undertakings" from the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regime, Informatica e diritto 2011, 147 - 152 (together with Marco Ricolfi et al.).

The "Principles Governing Charging" for Re-use of Public Sector Information, Informatica e diritto 20, 1-2 (2011), 105 - 127 (together with Marco Ricolfi et al.).

La Constitution économique européenne – L’actualité du modèle ordolibéral, Revue internationale de droit économique 25, 4 (2011), 419 - 454.

Perspectives européennes sur la politique de la concurrence dans l'espace OHADA, Revue internationale de droit économique 25, 3 (2011), 281 - 304.

Real Knowledge is to Know the Extent of One's Own Ignorance - On the Consumer Harm Approach in Innovation-Related Competition Cases, Antitrust law journal 76 (2010), 677 - 708.

"Pay-for-Delay" and Blocking Patents - Targeting Phamaceutical Companies under European Competition Law, IIC 40, 7 (2009), 751 - 755.

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the 2009 Commission Proposal for the Establishment of a Unified European Patent Judiciary, IIC 40, 7 (2009), 817 - 838 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

Quel contrôle pour les concentrations d'entreprises - L'espérience allemande du contrôle des concentrations, Revue Lamy de la concurrence 18 (2009), 144 - 147.

Wolfgang Fikentscher zum 80. Geburtstag, GRUR Int 57, 5 (2008), 365 - 367.

Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law Concerning the Commission’s Plans to Prolong the Protection Period for Performing Artists and Sound Recordings, IIC 39, 5 (2008), 586 - 596 (together with Nadine Klass et al.).

Abuse of Market Dominance and IP Law - Recent Developments in Europe (in Chinese translation), Global law review 2007, 119 - 128.

La gestion collective du droit d'auteur après la recommendation européenne dans le domaine musical en ligne: la situation en Allemagne, Propriétés intellectuelles 22 (2007), 33 - 52.

Power of the European Community in the Field of International Trade Law: Limitations on Foreign Policy of the Member States and Turkey, Ankara law review 3, 2 (2006), 99 - 127.

Právna ochrana dizajnu náhradných dielcov a návrh Európskej komisie na dolozku o opravách, Dusevne vlastnictvo 10, 2 (2006), 17 - 22 (together with Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur).

El nuevo reglamento de exención por categorías para acuerdos de transferencia de tecnología (RECATT) en la tensión entre economización y seguridad jurídica, Actas de derecho Industrial y derecho de Autor 25 (2005), 67 - 95.

Design Protection for Spare Parts and the Commission's Proposal for a Repairs Clause, IIC 36, 4 (2005), 448 - 457 (together with Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur).

Designschutz für Ersatzteile - Der Kommissionsvorschlag zur Einführung einer Reparaturklausel, GRUR Int 54, 6 (2005), 449 - 457 (together with Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur).

WTO und Kartellrecht - Zum Warum und Wie dieser Verbindung in Zeiten der Globalisierung, ZWeR - Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht 2, 2 (2004), 191 - 249.

Die neue Gruppenfreistellungsverordnung über Technologietransfer-Vereinbarungen im Spannungsfeld von Ökonomisierung und Rechtssicherheit, GRUR Int 53, 9 (2004), 716 - 727.

Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law. IMS Health and Trinko - Antitrust Placebo for Consumers Instead of Sound Economics in Refusal-to-Deal Cases, IIC 35, 7 (2004), 788 - 808.

Comments on the Draft Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation, IIC 35, 2 (2004), 187 - 196 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

International Competition Policy After Cancún: Placing a Singapore Issue on the WTO Development Agenda, World competition 27, 3 (2004), 419 - 457.

Procedures and Remedies for Enforcing IPRs: the European Commission´s Proposed Directive, EIPR 25, 10 (2003), 447 - 449 (together with William R. Cornish et al.).

Les principes de protection des intérêts diffus et des biens collectifs: quel ordre public pour les marchés globalisés?, Revue internationale de droit économique 17, 3/4 (2003), 387 - 409.

Wolfgang Fikentscher zum 75. Geburtstag, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 56, 21 (2003), 1502 - 1503.

Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über die Maßnahmen und Verfahren zum Schutz der Rechte am geistigen Eigentum - eine erste Würdigung, GRUR Int 52, 7 (2003), 605 - 608 (together with Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur).

Proposal for a Directive on Measures and Procedures to Ensure the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights - A First Statement, IIC 34, 5 (2003), 530 - 535 (together with Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur).

Mondialisation et société de l'information. Le commerce éléctronique et la protection des consommateurs, Revue internationale de droit économique XVI, 2/3 (2002), 405 - 444.

Community Legislation Continued: Complete Harmonisation, Framework Legislation or Non-Binding Measures - Alternative Approaches to European Contract Law, Consumer Protection and Unfair Trade Practices?, European business law review 13 (2002), 557 - 582.

Handelsrechtliche Besonderheiten der Stellvertretung, Jura 2002, 375 - 381 (together with Tobias Mentzel).

The Logic of Power in the Emerging European Constitution: Game Theory and the Division of Powers, International Review of Law and Economics 14, 3 (1994), 307 - 326 (together with Robert Cooter). DOI

Der Draft International Antitrust Code: zur institutionellen Struktur eines künftigen Weltkartellrechts, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 40, 2 (1994), 93 - 99 (together with Wolfgang Fikentscher).

• Auch in: W. Fikentscher/U. Immenga (Hg.), Draft International Antitrust Code, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1995, S. 35 - 92

Nach "GATT und WIPO": Das TRIPs-Abkommen und seine Anwendung in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, GRUR Int 43, 10 (1994), 777 - 788.

Was Sir Francis Drake a Dutchman? British Supremacy of Parliament After Factortame, The American Journal of Comparative Law 41, 4 (1993), 551 - 571.

Die politische und wirtschaftliche Wende in der DDR - Ein Fall für den Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage, Deutsch-deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift 4, 7 (1993), 194 - 199.

Zur Dauer des US-amerikanischen Urhebern gewährten Schutzes in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Änderungen aufgrund des Beitritts der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zur Berner Übereinkunft, GRUR Int 39, 1 (1991), 35 - 50.

Case notes

Kurzkommentar, BGH, 24.09.2002 - KZR 10/01, Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 19, 7 (2003), 311 - 312.

• Legal case: BGH, 2002-09-24

Reviews

Review of: Sylvie Nérisson, La légitimité de la gestion collective des droits des auteurs en France et en Allemagne, Propriétés intellectuelles 42 (2012), 125 - 126.

Conference Reports

Creators' Intellectual Property in the Free Market, in: European Writers' Congress (ed.), Author's Rights and the European Agenda 2007-2013 – Competitiveness & digital challenges, collective action & cultural diversity. Brussels, Belgium, September 20, 2006; [documentation of the 4th European Conference of Creators' Organisations in Brussels, September 20, 2006; papers for the XIX European Writers' Congress in Amsterdam, October 6 - 9, 2005] (The European writer), EWC, München 2006, 32 - 41.

• Event: Conference of Creators' Organisations in Brussels

Research Papers

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 6 February 2024 on the Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 24-03), 2024, 41 pp. (together with Dietmar Harhoff et al.).

• Available at SSRN

Fostering Contractual Pathways for Responsible AI Data and Model Sharing for Generative AI and Other AI Applications. GPAI I&C WG: Protection Innovation, Intellectual Property (IP) Project. Report, 2023, 44 pp. (together with GPAI, The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence et al.).

• https://gpai.ai/projects/responsible-ai/IC_Intellectual%20Property%20project.pdf

GPAI IP Expert - Preliminary Report on Data and AI Model Licensing, 2022, 36 pp. (together with Lee Tiedrich et al.).

• https://gpai.ai/projects/innovation-and-commercialization/intellectual-property-expert-preliminary-report-on-data-and-AI-model-licensing.pdf

Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-20), 2021, 11 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.). DOI

• On 30 July 2021 the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision in which it accepted that an artificial intelligence (AI) system called DABUS can be deemed the inventor under Australian patent law. While the decision appears ground-breaking at first sight, it was mostly based on unverified assumptions regarding the technical capabilities of AI systems in general and DABUS in particular. Furthermore, the decision omits important questions regarding the consequences that may follow from attributing inventorship to an entity that lacks legal capacity without undertaking a comprehensive analysis that would justify such attribution. This Position Statement highlights the shortcomings of the decision and points to those factual and legal questions that need to be answered first before recognising AI systems as inventors. While it responds primarily to the decision of the Australian Federal Court, the presented arguments can be of relevance for any jurisdiction dealing with the question of whether an AI system can be deemed an inventor under patent law.

Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 19-13), 2019, 15 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• The present Q&A paper aims at providing an overview of artificial intelligence with a special focus on machine learning as a currently predominant subfield thereof. Machine learning-based applications have been discussed intensely in legal scholarship, including in the field of intellectual property law, while many technical aspects remain ambiguous and often cause confusion.
  This text was drafted by the Research Group on the Regulation of the Digital Economy of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in the pursuit of understanding the fundamental characteristics of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in particular, that could potentially have an impact on intellectual property law. As a background paper, it provides the technological basis for the Group’s ongoing research relating thereto. The current version summarises insights gained from background literature research, interviews with practitioners and a workshop conducted in June 2019 in which experts in the field of artificial intelligence participated.
• Available at SSRN

Zugang zu standardessenziellen Patenten als moderne Regulierungsaufgabe: Wie reagiert das EU-Kartellrecht auf Patentkriege zwischen chinesischen Unternehmen? (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper, No. 5), 2014, 50 pp.

• Die Frage, unter welchen Voraussetzungen Inhaber von standardessenziellen Patente Unterlassungsansprüche geltend machen können, hat in jüngster Zeit Gerichte in zahlreichen Rechtsordnungen beschäftigt. Von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung für die Rechtslage in der Europäischen Union ist das 2013 von einem deutschen Patentgericht eingeleitete Vorlageverfahren zum Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) in der Rechtssache Huawei (Rs. C-170/13). Im Vorfeld der EuGH-Entscheidung kritisiert der folgende Beitrag die zu patentfreundliche Position deutscher Patentgerichte und begründet, unter welchen Voraussetzungen ein Kartellrechtsverstoß durch den Patentinhaber angenommen werden kann. Besonderer Beachtung wird dabei den Besonderheiten des Ausgangsfalles geschenkt. So zeigt sich, dass Patente, die für Mobilfunkstandards essenziell sind, eine ähnliche Regulierungsaufgabe begründen wie das Eigentum früherer Staatsmonopolisten am Festnetz. Da solche Standards international implementiert werden, handelt es sich sogar um eine Aufgabe von globaler Dimension, die nicht mit Mitteln des nationalen Telekommunikationsrechts als sektorenspezifisches Regulierungsrecht erfüllt werden kann, sondern – abhängig von der nationalen Rechtsordnung – nur über Vorschriften mit allgemeinem Geltungsanspruch, wozu auch das Kartellrecht gehören kann. Für die internationale Dimension des Problems stehen auch die Klägerin und die Beklagte des Ausgangsverfahrens, nämlich zwei chinesische Unternehmen, die dem staatlichen Industriesektors Chinas entstammen und heute zur Gruppe der weltweit größten Ausrüster von Telekommunikationsanlagen gehören.
  
• More recently courts in several jurisdictions had to deal with the issue of whether and under which conditions the owners of standard-essential patents can seek injunctive relief against users in patent infringement proceedings. For the European Union, the most important case is the one in Huawei (C-170/13), which was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) by a German court in 2013. For the situation prior to the judgment of the CJEU, this article criticizes the approach of some German patent courts as excessively patent-friendly and analyses under which conditions claims for injunctive relief brought to the courts should be considered anti-competitive. Thereby, the article particularly takes into account the specific circumstances of the Huawei case. It is shown that patents that are essential for the implementation of mobile phone technologies raise similar challenges as the property right in the physical telecommunications landlines of former state-owned incumbents. Since mobile phone standards are implemented internationally those challenges demonstrate a global dimension and can therefore not be addressed by national telecommunications law as the basis of sector-specific regulation. Rather, the answers to the problems caused by standard-essential patents have to be found in rules of general application, whereby national and supranational competition law may play a particular role. The international dimension of the problem is also highlighted by the parties to the proceedings before the German court. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are firms originating from the state-owned industrial complex in China. Both of them are today among the most important providers of telecommunications equipment worldwide.
  
• Available at SSRN

Copyright, Competition and Development, Report to the World Intellectual Property Organization, 2013, 284 pp.

• http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/copyright_competition_development.pdf

A Report on the Fourth Annual Conference of the International Competition Network, 2005, 48 pp., 03.11.2005 (together with Dirk Schroeder).

The Logic of Power in the Emerging Constitution: A Satisficing Model (University of Colifornia at Berkeley - School of Law, Program of Law and Economics, Working Paper, No. 94-4), 1994 (together with Robert Cooter).

Opinions

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 2 May 2023 on the Implementation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), 2023, 33 pp. (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego et al.).

• Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act; DMA) entered into force on 1 November 2022 and applies from 2 May 2023. The DMA is a novel type of regulation laying down harmonised rules for core platform services provided or offered by gatekeepers to business users and end users established or located in the Union. It pursues the objective of achieving fairness and contestability in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present.
  In its position statement of 2 May 2023, the Institute acknowledges that uniform rules throughout the European Union and centralised enforcement are necessary to prevent internal market fragmentation and welcomes the first Commission Implementing Regulation for the DMA of 14 April 2023. However, it remains concerned by the DMA’s unique institutional design and its interaction with other laws as outlined under Articles 1(5), 1(6) and 1(7).
  In particular, the Institute raises awareness about the possible overly broad blocking effects of the DMA on national rules, which may have the unintended consequences of privileging gatekeepers by jeopardizing future national legislative initiatives. This ultimately obstructs the achievement of contestability and fairness in digital markets. A complementary application of the competition rules and effective enforcement of the DMA is, against this backdrop, crucial. Yet there is uncertainty over administrative enforcement mechanisms, and it is unclear what role private enforcement plays in the current legal design of the DMA. The position statement identifies and examines challenges in the implementation of the DMA, along with recommendations for overcoming them.
• Position_Statement_MPI_DMA.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-11
• Also published in: GRUR International, Volume 72, Issue 9, September 2023, Pages 864–875

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 25 May 2022 on the Commission's Proposal of 23 February 2022 for a Regulation on Harmonised Rules on Fair Access to and Use of Data (Data Act), 2022, 124 pp. (together with Carolina Banda et al.).

• On 23 February 2022, the European Commission issued a Proposal for a Regulation on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act). The overarching objective of the Proposal is to ‘ensure fairness in the digital environment, stimulate a competitive data market, open opportunities for data-driven innovation and make data available for all’. The Institute hereby presents its Position Statement that features a comprehensive analysis of whether and to what extent the proposed rules might reach the envisaged objectives. It comments on all parts of the Proposal, including the new IoT data access and use right. Finally, the Institute offers a set of recommendations as to how the proposed provisions should be amended in the legislative process to align them better with the objectives of the Data Act.
• Position_Statement_MPI_Data_Act_Formal__13.06.2022.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 22-05

Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide, 2021, 11 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• MPI_Position_statement_AI_Inventor_2021-08-09.pdf

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate, 2021, 26 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• This Position Statement presents a broad overview of issues arising at the intersection of AI and IP law based on the work of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition research group on Regulation of the Digital Economy. While the analysis is approached mainly from a perspective de lege lata, it also identifies questions which require further reflection de lege ferenda supported by in-depth interdisciplinary research. The scope is confined to substantive European IP law, in particular, as regards copyright, patents, designs, databases and trade secrets. Specific AI-related issues are mapped out around the core questions of IP law, namely, the eligibility for protection under the respective IP regimes, allocation of rights and the scope of protection. The structure of the analysis reflects three key components of AI: inputs required for the development of AI systems, AI as a process and the output of AI applications. Overall, it is emphasised that, while recent legal and policy discussions have mostly focused on AI-aided and AI-generated output, a more holistic view that accounts for the role of IP law across the AI innovation cycle is indispensable.
• MPI_PositionPaper__SSRN_21-10.pdf
• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-10

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 11 February 2020 on the Draft Issues Paper of the World Intellectual Property Organization on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 2020, 9 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• WIPO AI Draft Issue Paper_Comments_Max Planck.pdf

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb zum Referentenentwurf (RefE) eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung des fairen Wettbewerbs vom 11. September 2018, 2018, 19 pp. (together with Annette Kur et al.).

• Stellungnahme RefE fairer Wettbewerb_gesamt_korrIB_fin_website.pdf

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission's "Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy", 2017, 13 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• This Position Statement responds to the Communication of 10 January 2017 by which the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future legal framework for data-driven markets that emerge in the course of the current digitization of industrial production and the advent of smart products in which sensors are embedded. In particular, the Position Statement comments the Commission’s ideas on a possible future data producer’s right as a means of promoting access to data. While the Max Plank Institute agrees that there are indeed instances where there is a need to “unlock data”, it rejects a data producer’s right. Rather, the Institute recommends considering more targeted data access rights that would specifically react to situations in which a manufacturer of smart products would otherwise try to reserve related markets for itself. The Max Planck Institute thereby takes inspiration from the data portability right that has already been implemented as part of the Basic Data Protection Regulation. Moreover, general principles on the design of data access regimes are developed. In sum, the Max Planck Institute favours a sector-specific approach to the introduction of a general data access right or a generally applicable data access regime. Sector-specific rules are especially needed for answering more concrete questions such as regarding the person entitled to claim access or the one of whether a data holder should be remunerated for granting access to data.
• MPI_Statement_Public_consultation_on_Building_the_EU_Data_Eco_28042017 Copy.pdf
• Chinese Translation of the Position Statement
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of August 16, 2016 - On the current debate on exclusive rights and access rights to data at the European level, 2016, 12 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• Also published in GRUR Int under the title: Ausschließlichkeits- und Zugangsrechte an Daten - Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 16.8.2016 zur aktuellen europäischen Debatte, GRUR Int 65,10 (2016), 914 - 918
• This position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has been released against the background of the European Free Flow of Data Initiative of the European Commission and the on-going political, economic and academic debate on the related issues. The Institute takes a stance as regards the introduction of exclusive rights in data, special legal protection of algorithms used in data analysis, as well as the questions on the applicability of the current EU legal framework for the sui-generis database rights and trade secrets to individual data and data-sets. The Institute sees no economic justification for the introduction of new exclusive rights in data, which could even hamper the functioning of the data-driven economy. In contrast, the statement emphasizes the importance of access to data in order to ensure the proper functioning of data-driven markets. It identifies the need for further research in this regard and recommends the general approach and principles to be considered if the special regulation of access to data is necessary.
• Positionspaper-Data-Eng-08-31_def-korr Copy.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-10 under the title: Data Ownership and Access to Data - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 16 August 2016 on the Current European Debate

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb zum Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz vom 9. Juli 2015 für ein Gesetz über die Wahrnehmung von Urheberrechten und verwandten Schutzrechten durch Verwertungsgesellschaften (Verwertungsgesellschaftengesetz - VGG), 2015, 31 pp.

• mpi_stellungnahme_vgg-e_14_08_2015 Copy.pdf

Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 1. Mai 2015 zur Umsetzung des WIPO-Vertrags von Marrakesch über eine zwingende urheberrechtliche Schranke zugunsten von Blinden, Sehbehinderten und Menschen mit Leseschwäche, 2015, 15 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.). DOI

• Also published in: GRUR Int, 64,7/8 (2015), 704 - 708
• English Version: Position Paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competion Concerning the Implementation of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 15-05
• Stellungnahme

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market COM (2012) 372, 2013, 35 pp. (together with Sylvie Nérisson et al.). DOI

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-04
• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 44,3 ; 322 - 350
• The Max Planck Institute welcomes the initiative of the European Commission for a binding legal instrument on collective management of copyright and related rights in the EU. Numerous provisions are to be appreciated (paras 15 and 31). Yet the Commission seems to fail to take account of the full legal framework and factual circumstances that have structured the current system of collective rights management. Disposing of natural monopolies in a two-sided market (paras 5-9), collecting societies (about this terminology, see footnote 2) should not refuse to grant access to their services to rightholders and users. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the European legislature follows the experience of numerous Members States and proposes an obligation to contract with rightholders (para 10) as well as with users (para 11). The critique on the Commission’s approach to cross-border licences for online rights on musical works as set forth in the Recommendation of 2005 (footnote 6) has unfortunately not been duly considered and the Commission’s assessment of the practical effects of the Recommendation is mistaken (paras 9-10, 12, 17, 46 et seq.). Differences of substantive copyright law among Member States still constitute an obstacle to the establishment of an internal market for works. This is why the Institute deems the Commission's sectorial approach to the regulation of cross-border licensing to be problematic. Also such regulation would require further harmonisation of substantive copyright law (paras 13, 20 and 25). Moreover, the Proposal fails to take account of statutory remuneration rights and cases of mandatory collective management (see paras 14, 18 and 36). Both pursue specific protection of original rightholders. In this regard the Proposal’s refusal to distinguish between different categories of rightholders raises concerns (paras 15-18, 28, 55). Since collecting societies manage copyrights and related rights arising from national law, and considering the benefits of an authorisation system (paras 57 and 69 et seq.), which can be found in several Member States, the Institute advises the European legislature to clearly state that the intellectual property exception of article 17(11) of the Service Directive applies to collecting societies (paras 19-24). The Proposal endangers the balance both between different categories of rightholders and between rightholders and users that the established system of collective management of copyright in Europe traditionally seeks to achieve (see paras 32-45, 64). It thereby compromises the laudable goal to foster the establishment of an internal market for online uses of works across Europe (paras 12, 26, 46-65).
• Max_Planck_Comments_Collective_Rights_Management.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Draft Commission Block Exemption Regulation on Research and Development Agreements and the Draft Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation Agreements, 2010, 28 pp. (together with Alfred Früh et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC, 41,8 (2010), 948 - 965
• Comments-RegualtionResearchDevelopmentAgreements6.pdf

Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Review of EU Legislation on Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 2010, 26 pp. (together with Thomas Jaeger et al.).

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper No. 10-08
• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC, 41,6 (2010), 674 - 695
• Between March and June 2010, the European Commission has conducted a consultation on the review of Council Regulation 1383/2003, concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing IP rights (the so-called Border Measures Regulation; BMR). The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, participatet in that consultation with a statement. In that statement, the Institute proposes several amendments to the definitions, scope and procedural provisions of the BMR. The proposals go into much detail, yet their main line can be generalized int wo ways: In terms of the scope of the BMR, firstly, the Intitute sees a need to distinguish between genuine acts of transit and other forms of passage. Genuine acts of transit should be excluded from the scope of the BMR. However, the transit definition or genuinity-requirement is not demed to be fulfilled wehere, in particular, there is a substantiated threat of either trade diversion onto any of the markets of the EU member states or of a misuse of the transit procedure for conduct of an illicit activity. In view of the special nature of such transits, a specific exclusion from the scope is also proposed for specific public health-related transits. In terms of procedural rights under the BMR, secondly, the Institute proposes several amendments with a view to achieving a better balancing of rights and enhanced TRIPS-conformity.
• Available at SSRN
• MPI-Statement_BMR-Revision_May-2010_fin.pdf

European Commission - Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy - Comments by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2009, 20 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• Also published as: Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-05
• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC, 40,3 (2009), 309 - 327
• This paper focuses on an important subset of the knowledge economy: the area of scientific research. Wide dissemination and accessibility of scientific information in the online environment are at the core of today's knowledge economy. To a large degree, scientific information is embedded within scholarly works, such as journal articles, which are subject to copyright protection. Limitations most relevant to scientific research provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive) are important tools to ease access to relevant information for purposes of scientific research on the end-user level. They need to be preserved and, where possible, adequately extended. However, even if widely introduced in all Member States and made immune against technological protection measures, these limitations alone may not guarantee wide dissemination and accessibility. The more publications become available in electronic form only, the greater the risk that libraries and scientific end users will face a single-source situation, forcing them to pay unreasonable prices or accept unreasonable conditions for accessing (for the most part publicly financed) scholarly contents, or to desist from using the relevant contents at all. Contractual arrangements between rightholders and users - as addressed in the Green Paper - are likely to benefit rightholders more than users. Limitations allowed for in the InfoSoc Directive cannot cope with these problems since they only take effect at the user level, i.e. when the content has already been procured. Wide dissemination and accessibility may need to be addressed also on the level of the intermediaries, e.g. by securing the existence of multiple sources and fair competition among publishers and other intermediaries with respect to the individual piece of scholarly work, such as an individual journal article. In this paper, we suggest certain elements that should be considered in the course of a legislative reform on the EU level, following a two-tier approach: (1) At the end-user level, limitations most relevant to scientific research should be mandatory, immune towards contractual agreements and technological protection measures, and should be construed as providing a bottom line, which national legislation should not fall below. In return, original rightholders should receive adequate compensation. (2) At the level of intermediaries, it is strongly recommended to follow up closely the developments in the scientific publication market, in particular concerning the situation of (publicly funded) research institutions vis a vis publishing companies and database producers. If certain negative effects cannot be mitigated otherwise, additional legal measures may have to be considered, which may be based on copyright or competition law, or even combine elements of the two, as will be addressed in part 2 of this paper.
• Comments-GreenPaperCopyrigthKnowledgeEconomy4.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts zum Vorschlag der Kommission für eine Richtlinie zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2006/116 EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte, 2008, 23 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in: GRUR Int 57,11 (2008), 907 - 916
• Englische Fassung: Comment by the Max Planck Institute on the Commission's Proposal for a Directive to Amend Directive 2006/116 Concerning the Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights, EIPR 31,2 (2009), 59 - 72
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-01
• The ostensible aim of the Commission's proposal to improve the economic situation of performing artists makes sense. Similarly, the descriptions of certain deficiencies in the music trade are true. However, the measures proposed by the Commission to remedy these problems - mainly a prolongation of the term of performance rights from 50 to 95 years - will, if at all, only bring marginal benefits to performing artists. In fact, the Commission also rightly recognizes that the problem of performing artists lies primarily in their lack of bargaining power as against the sound recording producers. However, it does not draw the obvious consequence that performers should be put in a better position by means of binding contractual provisions. Nor can any objection be raised to the Commission's description of the challenges faced by the sound recording industry by new - illegal - ways of using performances on the Internet. However, no mention is made of a number of conceivable specific options. Instead, the Commission also limited its considerations on the producers' situation to the said prolongation of the period of protection, although there is no objective relationship whatsoever between the duration of the performance rights and the user behaviour objected to. In truth, both groups of beneficiaries of performance rights would best be served if more effective use was made of the existing protection during the current 50 year term. On the part of the sound recording industry, an almost "perpetual" protection must not be allowed to distract from the necessity of using competition-based business models to recover the necessary investments and achieve a reasonable profit within realistic periods of time, taking into account the fact that the market presence of most productions will end much sooner than after five decades. Within that period of time, the performing artists can also be allowed to participate fairly in the profits by means of appropriate contractual provisions. The proposed prolongation of the term of protection instead leaves all the shortcomings of the present system untouched. The proposed term of 95 years is based blindly on the US copyright system, albeit wrongly interpreted and incapable of easy comparison with European law. This also ignores the fact that the overwhelming part of the proposed term of protection can in any event no longer serve to improve the economic situation of living performing artists. If at all, only the phonogram producers will profit - or any heirs of performing artists, and it is not their protection that seems to be what the Commission intends, or at least no mention is made of them anywhere. Even the Commission apparently does not believe that this initiative will achieve anything positive - even if only to the benefit of the sound recording industry; otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why its estimations are vague in such a manner that the figure of the estimated maximum is 20 times higher than the minimal estimation. Independent investigations suggest, however, that the prolongation of the protection period would have no perceptible benefits at all for those entitled to performance rights. At the same time, it cannot be disregarded that the prolongation of protection by a further 45 years would render access to musical productions difficult for a much longer period than at present if the copyright protection of the works used has already expired, which would often be the case particularly for classical music. However, it is not only with respect to the commercial effects that the Commission's proposals are half-baked. Even superficially well meant approaches such as specifically the creation of a fund for needy performing artists, are on closer examination nothing but window-dressing, particularly since they are only intended as transitional solutions. The same applies to the use-it-or-lose-it clause, the applicability of which will depend on overcoming unrealistically high obstacles. Certainly, the general aim of increasing the protection of the performing artist is to be welcomed. However, what is necessary, and also possible, are measures other than those proposed by the Commission.
• Stellungnahme-RichtlinieSchutzdauerUrheberrecht1.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the White Paper by the Directorate-General for Competition of April 2008 on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, 2008, 18 pp. (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC 39,7 (2008), 799 - 811
• Comments-WhitePaperDamageActionsForBreach2.pdf

Comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations („Rome I“) of December 15, 2005 and the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs’ Draft Report on the Proposal of August 22, 2006, 2007, 7 pp. (together with Jürgen Basedow et al.).

• Comments-ContractualObligations.pdf

Exclusive Jurisdiction and Cross Border IP (Patent) Infringement - Suggestions for Amendment of the Brussels I Regulation, 2006, 15 pp. (together with Jürgen Basedow et al.).

• Comments-JurisdictionCrossBorderIPInfringement2.pdf

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law (Munich) on the DG Competition Green Paper of December 2005 on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, 2006, 29 pp. (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC 37,6 (2006), 700 - 728
• Comments-GreenPaperAntitrustRules1.pdf

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law (Munich) on the DG Competition discussion paper of December 2005 on the application of Article 82 of the EC Treaty to exclusionary abuses, 2006, 24 pp. (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 37,5 (2006), 558 - 572
• Comments-ECTreatyExclusionaryAbuses1.pdf