Prof. Dr. Dr. Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt
LL.M. (NYU), Attorney (NY)

Affiliated Research Fellow

Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Professor of Law of Digital Goods, Commerce and Competition, TUM School of Management, TU Munich

mark-oliver.mackenrodt(at)ip.mpg.de

Fields of Law

Antitrust and Competition Law; IP Law; General Private and Commercial Law; Digital Platform Markets, Data-Driven Economy; Law and Economics; Europe; USA

Areas of Interest:

Antitrust and Competition Law; IP Law; Industrial Economics; Information Law; Technology Law; Contract Law; Tort Law

Academic Résumé

Law

  • phD in law (Dr. iur.), Ludwig Maximilians University Munich
  • New York University (NYU), postgraduate studies, LL.M. (NYU)
  • Ludwig Maximilians University Munich and Julius Maximilians University Würzburg (First Judicial State Examination)
  • Université de Genève
  • Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales (I.U.H.E.I), Geneva

Economics

  • phD in economics (Dr. rer. pol), The Research University in the Helmholtz Association, Karlsruhe Institute for Technologie (KIT)
  • Stern Business School (NYU), postgraduate studies, New York
  • University of Hagen
  • Julius Maximilians University Würzburg

Legal and Academic Practice

  • Professorship for Law of Digital Goods, Commerce and Competition, TUM School of Management, Technical University Munich
  • Affiliated Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
  • University Lecturer, LMU Munich
  • Attorney at Law (New York)
  • Bar Exam Germany (Second Judicial State Examination)
  • Harvard Law School, Olin Fellow, Cambridge (Mass.)
  • Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Senior researcher, department Professor Dr. Josef Drexl, LL.M. (Berkeley)
  • Ludwig Maximilians University Munich and Julius Maximilians University Würzburg, Institute for International Law, Academic Assistant
  • UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  • Foreign Office, German Embassy, London

Academic Prizes

Prize of the Munich Law Society (Münchener Juristische Gesellschaft e.V.)

Faculty Prize, Law Faculty of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich

Scholarships

German National Academic Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes), scholarship for studies in economics and in law

German National Acadamic Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes), scholarship for studies in Geneva, Switzerland, Université de Genève

European Recovery Program (ERP), scholarship of the German Ministry of Economics for studies in the US

GRUR (Gesellschaft für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property), research funding

Max Planck Society, research funding

VG Wort, research funding

Memberships

Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA)

Münchner Kartellrechtsforum e.V. (MKRF)

Asian Competition Forum, Hongkong (ACF)

Publications

Edited Works

Recht als Infrastruktur für Innovation (GRUR Junge Wissenschaft, 3), Nomos, Baden-Baden 2019, 339 pp. (together with Lena Maute).

  • Event: 4. Tagung GRUR Junge Wissenschaft – Kolloquium zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Urheber- und Medienrecht, München, 2018-06-29

Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law - Towards a Holistic Approach? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 28), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2018, VI + 577 pp. (together with Mor Bakhoum et al.). DOI

    Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 5), Springer, Berlin 2008, VII + 204 pp. (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego, Stefan Enchelmaier).

    • reviewed by: Schuhmacher, ZeuP 2009, 668-670
    • reviewed in: Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2009),1, 159
    • reviewed by: Furse, 2009 E.C.L.R. 473

    Books and Monographs

    Denationalisierung und Europäisierung im Informationsmodell des UWG - die Irreführung durch Unterlassen zwischen Transparenzgebot und Wahrheitsgebot (Schriften zum Wirtschaftsrecht, 296), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2017, 295 pp.

      Technologie statt Vertrag? - Sachmangelbegriff, negative Beschaffenheitsvereinbarungen und AGB beim Kauf digitaler Güter (Studien zum Privatrecht, 45), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2015, XX + 302 pp.

      • reviewed by: Zech, AcP 218 (2018), 144-150
      • reviewed by: Specht, ZGE/IPJ 7 (2015), 484-487

      Wettbewerbsrecht (KAS-Schriftenreihe China, 38), Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Auslandsbüro China, Peking 2004, 71 pp. (together with Dieter Wolf).

        Contributions to Collected Editions, Commentaries, Handbooks and Encyclopaedias

        The Role of Antitrust Authorities Regarding the Digital Economy, in: LIGUE-Conference volume 2020/2021, Springer, Berlin 2021, forthcoming.

          EU Competition Law and the Digital Economy: Protecting Free and Fair Competition in an Age of Technological (R)evolution, in: Daniel Mandrescu (ed.), EU Competition Law and the Digital Economy - Protecting Free and Fair Competition in an Age of Technological (R)evolution Vol. 3, Eleven International Publishing, The Hague 2020, 251 - 281.

          • Event: The XXIX FIDE Congress 2020, The Hague

          Kommentierung §§ 33f GWB - (Wirkung von Vergleichen), in: Ullrich Loewenheim et al. (ed.), Kartellrecht - Kommentar zum Deutschen und Europäischen Recht, 4. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2020, 2486 - 2499.

            Kommentierung §§ 33e GWB - (Kronzeugen), in: Ullrich Loewenheim et al. (ed.), Kartellrecht - Kommentar zum Deutschen und Europäischen Recht, 4. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2020, 2473 - 2485.

              Kommentierung §§ 33d GWB - (Gesamtschuldnerische Haftung sowie Privilegierung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen), in: Ullrich Loewenheim et al. (ed.), Kartellrecht - Kommentar zum Deutschen und Europäischen Recht, 4. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2020, 2453 - 2473.

                Personal Data After the Death of the Data Subject—Exploring Possible Features of a Holistic Approach, in: Mor Bakhoum et al. (ed.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 28), Springer, Berlin 2018, 273 - 302. DOI

                • This paper intends to explore possible features of a holistic approach to the legal treatment of personal data. The paper proceeds in an inductive way. As an exemplary scenario the legal treatment of personal data after the death of the data subject is examined. More specifically, recent cases with regard to heirs demanding access to a social media account and to the personal data therein after the death of the testator are analysed and used as a reference point for discussion. It is examined how property law, intellectual property law, privacy law, the right to personality, the portability provisions, contract law, inheritance law and telecommunications law deal with personal data after the death of the testator. Against this background, shortcomings, common features and possible synergies are identified which might be taken into account for developing a holistic legal approach to personal data.

                Introducing a Holistic Approach to Personal Data, in: Mor Bakhoum et al. (ed.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 28), Springer, Berlin 2018, 1 - 4 (together with Mor Bakhoum et al.). DOI

                  Kartellschadensersatz: Vergleiche und Schadensersatz bei mehreren Mitschädigern, in: Christian Kersting, Rupprecht Podszun (eds.), Die 9. GWB-Novelle - Kartellschadensersatz, Digitale Ökonomie, Fusionskontrolle, Bußgeldrecht, Verbraucherschutz, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 213 - 243.

                    Privilegierung von Kronzeugen sowie von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen (KMU) bei der Gesamtschuld, in: Christian Kersting, Rupprecht Podszun (eds.), Die 9. GWB-Novelle - Kartellschadensersatz, Digitale Ökonomie, Fusionskontrolle, Bußgeldrecht, Verbraucherschutz, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 173 - 211.

                      Assessing the Effects of Intellectual Property Rights in Network Standards, in: Josef Drexl (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham; Northampton 2008, 80 - 103.

                        Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms?, in: Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, Beatriz Conde Gallego, Stefan Enchelmaier (eds.), Abuse of Dominant Position - New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 5), Springer, Berlin 2008, V - VIII (together with Beatriz Conde Gallego, Stefan Enchelmaier).

                          Private Incentive, Optimal Deterrence and Damage Claims for Abuses of Dominant Positions - The Interaction between the Economic Review of the Prohibition of Abuses of Dominant Positions and Private Enforcement, in: Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, Beatriz Conde Gallego, Stefan Enchelmaier (eds.), Abuse of Dominant Position - New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 5), Springer, Berlin 2008, 165 - 190.

                            Germany, in: Pradeep S. Mehta (ed.), Competition Regimes in the World - A Civil Society Report, CUTS International, Jaipur 2006, 380 - 386.

                              Netzwerkeffekte, dynamische Effizienz und Kartellrecht, in: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (ed.), Jahrbuch 2005, MPG, München 2005, 211 - 214.

                                Internationales und ausländisches Kartellrecht, in: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (ed.), Jahrbuch 2004, MPG, München 2004, 229 - 230.

                                  Journal Articles

                                  Digitale Märkte als Gegenstand der deutschen Kartellrechtspraxis, Europarecht, Beiheft 2021,1 (2021), 87 - 136.

                                    Data Protection and Competition Law after the Facebook Decision of the German BGH, GRUR Int 2021, forthcoming.

                                      Kartellrecht in der Digitalwirtschaft, Europarecht 2021, forthcoming.

                                        Zur kartellrechtlichen Bewertung der Datenverarbeitung durch Facebook und ihrer normativen Kohärenz mit dem Datenschutzrecht und dem Datenschuldrecht – Zugleich Besprechung von BGH, Beschluss vom 23.6.2020 – KVR 69/19 – Facebook (ZUM 2020, 863), ZUM 65, 2 (2021), 89 - 103 (together with Klaus Wiedemann).

                                          Remedies for Algorithmic Tacit Collusion, Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 2020, 05.08.2020 (together with Francisco Beneke). DOI

                                          • There is growing evidence that tacit collusion can be autonomously achieved by machine learning technology, at least in some real-life examples identified in the literature and experimental settings. Although more work needs to be done to assess the competitive risks of widespread adoption of autonomous pricing agents, this is still an appropriate time to examine which possible remedies can be used in case competition law shifts towards the prohibition of tacit collusion. This is because outlawing such conduct is pointless unless there are suitable remedies that can be used to address the social harm. This article explores how fines and structural and behavioural remedies can serve to discourage collusive results while preserving the incentives to use efficiency-enhancing algorithms. We find that this could be achieved if fines and remedies can target structural conditions that facilitate collusion. In addition, the problem of unfeasibility of injunctions to remedy traditional price coordination changes with the use of pricing software, which in theory can be programmed to avoid collusive outcomes. Finally, machine-learning methods can be used by the authorities themselves as a tool to test the effects of any given combination of remedies and to estimate a more accurate competitive benchmark for the calculation of the appropriate fine.

                                          Price and Condition Parity Clauses in Contracts Between Hotel Booking Platforms and Hotels, IIC 50, 9 (2019), 1131 - 1143. DOI

                                          • Price parity clauses on digital platforms, such as hotel booking platforms, have been the subject of divergent decisions under Art. 101 TFEU by courts and competition authorities in many EU Member States. These decisions have revealed significant differences between and even within single Member States with regard to the dogmatic treatment of price parity clauses, the factual assessment and the legal outcome. Some countries have even introduced special legislation with regard to price parity clauses. The Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeals in May 2019 declared narrow price parity clauses to be consistent with Art. 101 TFEU. Only a few weeks later the German Düsseldorf Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) overturned a decision by the German Competition Authority (Bundeskartellamt) and also held that narrow price parity clauses are valid. This case is on appeal to the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). However, the judgments by the two courts of appeals are at odds with regard to their dogmatic approach to Art. 101 TFEU and to the factual findings. Against this background, the Swedish court of appeals’ judgment casts light on several aspects that might be of relevance for similar cases in other jurisdictions or that require clarification by a referral to the ECJ or by the lawmakers.

                                          Artificial Intelligence and Collusion, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 109 - 134 (together with Francisco Beneke). DOI

                                          • The debate over whether, in the absence of overt communications, mere tacit coordination between competitors should be outlawed is neither new nor settled. Current technological developments in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) have added further complexity to the discussion, which has given rise to many works that explore the effects of the use of AI-powered pricing software on competition. This paper attempts to contribute to the debate by addressing some issues not covered in previous works. First, there are risks to consumer welfare associated with AI pricing software’s capacity to solve uncertainty (for example, supra-competitive equilibria may not be disrupted by changes in demand). Second, the use of artificial neural networks can make detection of anticompetitive pricing patterns more difficult. On the other hand, if authorities can harness the power of the technology themselves, detection problems could be alleviated. Third, the black box argument may not be a problem in this application of artificial neural networks since the pricing software industry has been able to develop more transparent algorithms in response to market demands. Finally, the use of AI pricing software brings some changes to the debate on the feasibility of remedies to mere interdependence, although more work needs to be carried out in this area.

                                          Digital Inheritance in Germany, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 8, 2 (2018), 41 - 47.

                                            Der "digitale Nachlass" und die Verweigerung des Zugangs zu einem Internetaccount gegenüber den Erben, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht - Rechtsprechungsdienst 21, 10 (2017), 540 - 542.

                                              Zivilrechtliche und prozessuale Harmonisierungen im europäischen Richtlinienvorschlag zu kartellrechtlichen Schadensersatzklagen, GRUR Int 62, 8/9 (2013), 757 - 758.

                                                Der neue europäische Rechtsrahmen für vertikale Vereinbarungen, GRUR Int 59, 11 (2010), 1013.

                                                  Die Entstehung neuer Kartellrechtsordnungen in China und Indonesien, GRUR Int 56, 11 (2007), 895 - 899 (together with Rupprecht Podszun).

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

                                                      Reviews

                                                      Review of: Adina Reichardt: Gewerbliche Schutzrechte in der Europäischen Fusionskontrolle. Schutzrechtsspezifische Besonderheiten bei der Anwendung der Fusionskontrollverordnung, Frankfurt am Main u. a.: Peter Lang 2011 (Wettbewerbsrechtliche Studien Bd. 8), 246 S., ISBN 978-3-631-61131-9. Carsten F. Albert: Patente in der Fusionskontrolle, Mohr Siebeck: 2011 (Geistiges Eigentum und Wettbewerbsrecht Bd. 50), XX, 292 S., ISBN 978-3-16-150704-5., Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum 4, 3 (2012), 400 - 404.

                                                        Review of: Gerhard Wiedemann (ed.): Handbuch des Kartellrechts (2nd edition). C.H. Beck, Munich 2008. pp. 2172. ISBN 978-3-406-53430-0, IIC 41, 6 (2010), 748 - 750.

                                                          Review of: Hirsch, Günter/ Montag, Frank/ Säcker, Franz Jürgen: Münchener Kommentar zum Europäischen und Deutschen Wettbewerbsrecht (Kartellrecht). Verlag C. H. Beck, Band 1: Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht: EuWettbR, München 2007, XXVI, 2713 S., ISBN 978-3-406-54275-6; Band 2: Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen: GWB, München 2008, XXI, 1209 S., ISBN 978-3-406-54276-3; Band 3: Beihilfenrecht und Vergaberecht: BeihilfenR VergabeR, München, angekündigt für 2010, ISBN 978-3-406-54277-0, GRUR Int 59, 10 (2010), 903 - 905.

                                                            Review of: Immenga, Ullrich / Mestmäcker, Ernst-Joachim (Hrsg.): Wettbewerbsrecht, Band 1: Kommentar zum Europäischen Kartellrecht in zwei Teilbänden: EG, Teile 1 und 2, Band 2: GWB, Kommentar zum Deutschen Kartellrecht. 4. Aufl., Verlag C.H. Beck, München 2007, 6603 S., ISBN 978-3-406-55180-2, GRUR 110, 6 (2008), 501 - 502.

                                                              Conference Reports

                                                              Recht als Infrastruktur für Innovation - Bericht zur Tagung GRUR Junge Wissenschaft 2018 am 29. / 30. Juni in München, GRUR-Newsletter 02/2018 (2019), 7 (together with Lena Maute).

                                                              • Event: 4. Tagung GRUR Junge Wissenschaft – Kolloquium zum Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Urheber- und Medienrecht, München, 2018-06-29

                                                              Innovation, Kreativität und immaterialgüterrechtliche Fragestellungen: Ein indisch-europäischer Dialog, 19.-20. November 2010 in Kalkutta, Indien, GRUR Int 60, 8/9 (2011), 713 - 716 (together with Andrea Wechsler).

                                                              • Event: Innovation, Kreativität und immaterialgüterrechtliche Fragestellungen: Ein indisch-europäischer Dialog, Kalkutta, 2010-11-19

                                                              3. Konferenz der Academic Society for Competition Law in Zürich, WuW 58, 10 (2008), 1079 - 1082 (together with Beatriz Conde-Gallego, Rupprecht Podszun).

                                                                Nach Microsoft: Die 34. Kartellrechtskonferenz der Fordham University, GRUR Int 57, 1 (2008), 38 - 41 (together with Thomas Jaeger, Rupprecht Podszun).

                                                                  Geistiges Eigentum und wirtschaftliche Transformation - International Seminar on Intellectual Property Education and Research am 16./17. November 2006 in Hyderabad, GRUR Int 56, 4 (2007), 312 - 315 (together with Dimitrios Riziotis).

                                                                  • Event: International Seminar on Intellectual Property Education and Research, Hyderabad, 2006-11-16

                                                                  The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy - Report on a Max Planck Conference on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, IIC 36, 1 (2005), 113 - 126.

                                                                    Opinions

                                                                    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 Josef Drexl et al.).

                                                                    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 Josef Drexl et al.).

                                                                    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 Josef Drexl et al.).

                                                                    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 Josef Drexl et al.).

                                                                    Lectures

                                                                    06/27 - 06/29/19

                                                                    Algorithmic tacit collusion
                                                                    14th ASCOLA Conference
                                                                    Location: Aix-en-Provence, France


                                                                    IP, Competition and Innovation Related Agreements
                                                                    Conference on Innovation, Creativity, and IP-Policy
                                                                    National University of Judicial Sciences (NUJS)
                                                                    Location: Kolkata, India


                                                                    Private Schadensersatzklagen im Kartellrecht
                                                                    Location: Munich, Germany


                                                                    The Competitive Effects of Intellectual Property Rights
                                                                    Location: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, Germany


                                                                    Quantification of Damages and Private Enforcement of Article 82 EC
                                                                    Location: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, Germany


                                                                    Welfare Effects of Patent Licensing
                                                                    Location: NALSAR University, Hyderabad, India