Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reto M. Hilty

Edited Works

Access to Medicines and Vaccines - Implementing Flexibilities Under Intellectual Property Law, Springer, Cham (Switzerland) 2022, X + 369 pp. (together with Carlos Correa). DOI

Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2018, XXXI + 767 pp. (together with Thomas Jaeger).

Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12 ), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 208 pp. (together with Valentina Moscon).

• E-Book - Hilty - Moscon - 18.09.2017.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Remuneration of Copyright Owners - Regulatory Challenges of New Business Models (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 27), Springer, Berlin 2017, XII + 327 pp. (together with Kung-Chung Liu). DOI

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 Josef Drexl).

Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media - Festschrift 50 Jahre Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), C.H. Beck, München 2015, XIII + 437 pp. (together with Thomas Dreier).

Intellectual property and free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 24), Springer, Berlin 2015, VIII + 438 pp. (together with Christoph Antons).

Compulsory Licensing. Practical Experiences and Ways Forward (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 22), Springer, Berlin 2015, VI + 458 pp. (together with Kung-Chung Liu).

Corporate Social Responsibility. Verbindliche Standards des Wettbewerbsrechts? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 21), Springer, Berlin 2014, XI + 280 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - UWG (Basler Kommentar), Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel 2013, XXXVI + 843 pp. (together with Reto Arpagaus).

Schweizer Obligationenrecht 2020 - Entwurf für einen neuen allgemeinen Teil: OR 2020, Schulthess, Zürich 2013, CCXXXIII + 699 pp. (together with Claire Huguenin).

The Enforcement of Patents (Max Planck Series of Asian Intellectual Property Law, 16), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2012, XXVI + 460 pp. (together with Kung-Chung Liu).

Balancing Copyright - A Survey of National Approaches (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 18), Springer, Berlin 2012, IX + 1093 pp. (together with Sylvie Nérisson).

MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Springer, Berlin, since 2011 (together with Josef Drexl).

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

Herausforderung Innovation - eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 17), Springer, Berlin [u.a.] 2011, X + 168 pp. (together with Thomas Jaeger, Matthias Lamping). DOI

Kommunikation - Festschrift für Rolf H. Weber zum 60. Geburtstag, Stämpfli, Bern 2011, XI + 980 pp. (together with Rolf Sethe 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 Josef Drexl et al.).

Lauterkeitsrecht und Acquis Communautaire (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 14), Springer, Berlin 2009, VIII + 306 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

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

Geistiges Eigentum. Herausforderung Durchsetzung (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 4), Springer, Berlin 2008, IX + 219 pp. (together with Thomas Jaeger, Volker Kitz).

Max Planck Series on Asian Intellectual Property Law, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, since 2008.

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

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

Perspectives d'harmonisation du droit d'auteur en Europe - Rencontres franco-allemandes (Le droit des affaires: propriété intellectuelle, 29), IPRI - Institut de Recherche en Propriété Intellectuelle Henri Desbois, Paris 2007, XV + 617 pp. (together with Christophe Geiger, Michèle Bouyssi-Ruch).

Law Against Unfair Competition. Towards a New Paradigm in Europe? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 1), Springer, Berlin 2007, X + 271 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Impulse für eine europäische Harmonisierung des Urheberrechts - Urheberrecht im deutsch-französischen Dialog (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2), Springer, Berlin 2007, XV + 617 pp. (together with Christophe Geiger).

Der Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht, Teil 2: Die Thesen. Tagung des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum, München 2006 (together with Christophe Geiger).

Quellen des Urheberrechts, 56. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, Neuwied 2005 (together with Paul Katzenberger et al.).

Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2004, 302 pp. (together with Alexander Peukert).

Quellen des Urheberrechts, 55. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2004 (together with Paul Katzenberger et al.).

Quellen des Urheberrechts, 52. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2003 (together with Paul Katzenberger et al.).

Quellen des Urheberrechts, 53. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2003 (together with Paul Katzenberger et al.).

Geschäftsplattform Internet, Bd. III: Kapitalmarkt - Marktauftritt - Besteuerung (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 17), Schulthess, Zürich 2002, 280 pp. (together with Rolf H. Weber, Rolf Auf der Maur).

Urheberrecht am Scheideweg? (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, 59), Stämpfli, Bern 2002, 124 pp. (together with Mathis Berger).

Recht im Wandel seines sozialen und technischen Umfeldes - Festschrift für Manfred Rehbinder, Beck/Stämpfli, München/Bern 2002, XVI + 872 pp. (together with Jürgen Becker et al.).

Quellen des Urheberrechts, 51. Ergänzungslieferung, Luchterhand, München 2001 (together with Paul Katzenberger et al.).

Geschäftsplattform Internet, Bd. II: Rechtliche und praktische Aspekte (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 14), Schulthess, Zürich 2001, 328 pp. (together with Rolf H. Weber, Rolf Auf der Maur).

Geschäftsplattform Internet, Bd. I: Rechtliche und praktische Aspekte (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 10), Schulthess, Zürich 2000, 355 pp. (together with Rolf H. Weber, Rolf Auf der Maur).

Daten und Datenbanken - Rechtsfragen zu Schutz und Nutzung (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 4), Schulthess/Nomos, Zürich/Baden-Baden 1999, 175 pp. (together with Rolf H. Weber).

Information Highway - Beiträge zu rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Fragen, Stämpfli/C.H. Beck, Bern/München 1996, 692 pp.

Beiträge zum Urheber- und Medienrecht (Schriftenreihe des Archivs für Urheber-, Film-, Funk- und Theaterrecht (UFITA), 131), Nomos, Baden-Baden 1995, 284 pp. (together with Manfred Rehbinder).

Aufsätze zum schweizerischen Urheber- und Medienrecht (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, 38), Stämpfli, Bern 1995, 262 pp. (together with Manfred Rehbinder).

Die Verwertung von Urheberrechten in Europa, Helbing & Lichtenhahn/Bruylant/Heymanns, Basel/Brüssel/Köln/etc. 1995, 324 pp.

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

sic! Zeitschrift für Immaterialgüter-, Informations- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Schulthess, Zürich (together with Marc Amstutz et al.).

Multimedia und Recht - Zeitschrift für Informations-, Telekommunikations- und Medienrecht, Beck, München (together with Dietrich Beese et al.).

Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Heymanns, Köln (together with Josef Drexl et al.).

Literatur zum europäischen Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel.

Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, Stämpfli, Bern (together with Manfred Rehbinder).

IIC Studies. Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, Hart Publ., Oxford (together with Josef Drexl, Joseph Straus).

Molengrafica Series, Intersentia, Antwerpen (together with F. Willem Grosheide et al.).

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

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

Books and Monographs

Urheberrecht (Stämpflis juristische Lehrbücher), 2. ed., Stämpfli, Bern 2020, XXXIV + 430 pp.

Lizenzkartellrecht - Schweizer Recht, gespiegelt am US-amerikanischen und europäischen Recht, Stämpfli, Bern 2017, XIII + 339 pp. (together with Alfred Früh).

Urheberrecht (Stämpflis juristische Lehrbücher), Stämpfli, Bern 2011, XXIII + 413 pp.

Leistungsschutzrechte zugunsten von Sportveranstaltern? Rechtsgutachten, Boorberg, Stuttgart 2007, 94 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Lizenzvertragsrecht - Systematisierung und Typisierung aus schutz- und schuldrechtlicher Sicht, Stämpfli, Bern 2001, LXIX + 1093 pp.

Der Schutzbereich des Patents - Eine Untersuchung des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens anhand des vergleichbaren Schweizer Rechts (Europarecht - Literatur zum europäischen Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht), Helbing & Lichtenhahn; Heymanns, Basel; Köln 1990, XIX + 299 pp.

Contributions to Collected Editions, Commentaries, Handbooks and Encyclopaedias

Traditional Knowledge, Databases and Prior Art: Options for an Effective Defensive Use of TK against undue Patent Granting, in: Irini Stamatoudi (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA; Cheltenham, UK 2022, 132 - 153 (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista, Suelen Carls).

Preface, in: Carlos Correa, Reto M. Hilty (eds.), Access to Medicines and Vaccines - Implementing Flexibilities Under Intellectual Property Law, Springer, Cham (Switzerland) 2022, V - VII (together with Carlos Correa).

La Propiedad Intelectual en Latinoamérica y su Rol en el Desarrollo Económico y Social, in: Estudos de Propriedade Intelectual em Homenagem ao Prof. Dr. Denis Borges Barbosa, IODA - Instituto Observatório do Direito Autoral, Curitiba 2021, 25 - 64 (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista et al.).

• O texto trata do estabelecimento e evolução dos direitos da propriedade in-telectual na América Latina. Perpassa os contextos nos quais esses direitos foram incorporados ao arcabouço legal doméstico. Ainda que as economias latino-americanas sejam mais ou menos frágeis do ponto de vista da pro-priedade intelectual, as conclusões apontam que há diversos desafios a se-rem enfrentados, mas que os países da região têm potencial para superá-los e avançar na proteção e na utilização dos seus ativos intelectuais.
• This article deals with the establishment and evolution of intellectual property rights in Latin America. It goes through the contexts in which these rights have been in-corporated into the domestic legal framework. Although Latin American economies are more or less fragile from the point of view of intellectual property, the conclusions indicate that there are several challenges to be faced, but that the countries of the region have the potential to overcome them and advance in the protection and use of their intellectual assets.
• https://codaip.gedai.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/1_Estudos-de-Propriedade-Intelectual-em-homenagem-ao-Prof_Dr_Denis-Borges-Barbosa.pdf

Images in Sports: Reflections on Related-Rights Protection, in: Intellectual Property and Sports – Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz (Information Law Series), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021, 347 - 359.

An International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law, in: Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Ng-Loy Wee Loon, Haochen Sun (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2021, 59 - 73 (together with Valentina Moscon).

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-14 under the title: Permitted Uses in Copyright Law - Is There Need for an International Instrument?

Legal Concept of "Exhaustion": Exhausted?, 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, 272 - 283.

Intellectual Property Justification for Artificial Intelligence, in: Jyh-An Lee, Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2021 (together with Jörg Hoffmann, Stefan Scheuerer).

• Also published at Oxford Business Law Blog
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-02

Digital Markets, Rules of Conduct, and Liability of Online Intermediaries-Analysis of Two Case Studies: Unfair Commercial Practices and Trade Secrets Infringement, in: Giancarlo Frosio (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2020, 421 - 443 (together with Valentina Moscon).

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina e.V. – Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften -, acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften e.V., Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften e.V. (ed.), Additive Fertigung – Entwicklungen, Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen - Stellungnahme 2020 (Schriftenreihe zur wissenschaftsbasierten Politikberatung ), Halle, Saale 2020, 91 - 97.

Die Hydra des Dateneigentums – eine methodische Betrachtung, in: Stiftung Datenschutz (ed.), Dateneigentum und Datenhandel (DatenDebatten, 3), Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 2018, 241 - 260 (together with Heiko Richter).

• Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 12

Kapitel 1 - Grundlagen, Aufbau und Methodik, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (eds.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 1 - 58 (together with Sophie Luise Bings et al.). DOI

Kapitel 3.2 - Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf Schutzdefizite und Überschutz im materiellen Recht, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (eds.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 287 - 450 (together with Arpi Abovyan et al.). DOI

Kapitel 3.1 - Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf die Voraussetzungen, die Reichweite und die Begrenzungen einzelner Schutzrechte, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (eds.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 146 - 286 (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista et al.). DOI

Kapitel 4 - Gesamtanalyse und Erkenntnisse, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (eds.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 665 - 703 (together with Thomas Jaeger). DOI

Big Data: Ownership and Use in the Digital Age, in: Xavier Seuba, Christophe Geiger, Julien Pénin (eds.), Intellectual Property and Digital Trade in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (CEIPI-ICTSD Publication Series on Global Perspectives and Challenges for the Intellectual Property System, Issue 5), ICTSD, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development/CEIPI, Centre d'Études Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle, Geneva/Strasbourg 2018, 85 - 94.

Intellectual Property and Private Ordering, in: Rochelle Dreyfuss, Justine Pila (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2018, 898 - 930.

• This chapter considers the law’s response to the challenge posed by the use of contract and technological protection measures (TPMs) as private ordering mechanisms in intellectual property. It considers the three (factual, legal, and contractual) levels of exclusivity on which private ordering may apply, and the different tools for intervening in private ordering that currently exist. It also highlights the inability of these tools to impose effective limits on private ordering by use of TPMs particularly, and considers the desirability and feasibility of new regulatory approaches based on the laws of consumer protection, IP, and unfair competition. The inflexibility and other shortcomings of such traditional regulatory mechanisms leads to a discussion of the possibility of alternative, self-regulatory mechanisms emerging, including the conditions required to that end, drawing on the experience of standard essential patents and collective rights management in copyright.
• Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-15 under the title: IP and private ordering

Part G - Use of Protected Content on Online Platforms (Article 13 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (eds.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 99 - 112 (together with Andrea Bauer).

Part F - Claims to Fair Compensation (Article 12 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (eds.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 89 - 98 (together with Valentina Moscon).

Part E - Protection of Press Publications Concerning Digital Uses (Article 11 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (eds.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 79 - 88 (together with Valentina Moscon).

Part D - Copyright Contract Law (Article 10 and Articles 14-16 COM(2016) 593 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (eds.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 71 - 78 (together with Valentina Moscon).

Part B - Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 4: Implementation of Marrakesh Treaty (COM(2016) 596 final and COM(2016) 595 final), in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (eds.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 51 - 60 (together with Silke von Lewinski, Valentina Moscon).

Part A - General Remarks, in: Reto M. Hilty, Valentina Moscon (eds.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 17-12), Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017, 13 - 23 (together with Valentina Moscon).

Die freie Benutzung nach §24 UrhG – Grenzen und Potential, in: Anwalt des Urheberrechts. Festschrift für Gernot Schulze zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 127 - 136.

Developing a Common Patent System – Lessons to Be Learned from the European Experience, in: Elizabeth Siew-Kuan Ng, Graeme W. Austin (eds.), International Intellectual Property and the ASEAN Way – Pathways to Interoperability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK) 2017, 254 - 290 (together with Roberto Romandini).

• Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-09 under the title: Developing a Common Patent System – Lessons to Be Learnt from the European Experience

Welcome Speech, in: Silke von Lewinski (ed.), Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, De Gruyter, Berlin; Boston 2017, 9 - 11.

• Event: ALAI Congres, Bonn, 2015-06-18

Control Mechanisms for CRM Systems and Competition Law, in: Kung-Chung Liu, Reto M. Hilty (eds.), Remuneration of Copyright Owners - Regulatory Challenges of New Business Models (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 27), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2017, 157 - 176 (together with Tao Li). DOI

• There are basically two different mechanisms to control collective management organizations (CMOs), namely the general competition-law approach and the sector-specific regulation approach. This chapter explains the features of copyright management (CRM) systems in general and discusses up- and downsides of both approaches. In conclusion it suggests a primary focus on sector-specific regulation. This approach not only takes into account the particularities of two-sided markets in which CMOs act as intermediaries, but also allows the balancing of non-economic values and interests which are among the objectives of CMOs. Sector-specific regulation is further capable of addressing governance issues of CMOs; above all, it promotes transparency for both right holders and users by providing ex ante guidance. General competition law, in contrast, applies ex post and is particularly likely to become a last resort to control CMOs.
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-04

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 Hanns Ullrich et al.). DOI

Are New Modes of Criminal and Civil Enforcement a New Form of Intellectual Property?, in: Susy Frankel, Daniel Gervais (eds.), The Internet and the Emerging Importance of New Forms of Intellectual Property (Information Law Series, 37), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2016, 303 - 326.

Chapter 10: Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in the Digital Age. Four Cornerstones for a Future-Proof Legal Framework in the EU, in: Irini A. Stamatoudi (ed.), New Developments in EU and International Copyright Law (Information Law Series, 35), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn (NL) 2016, 283 - 298 (together with Kaya Köklü).

Ways Out of the Trap of Article 1(1) TRIPS, 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, 185 - 210. DOI

• Article 1, paragraph 1, of TRIPS puts into effect a minimal-protection approach: In their domestic laws, Member States may provide more extensive IP protection, but they may not undermine the required level of protection. Although this required level is not carved in stone, lowering it would require a unanimous agreement of all Member States. Such an agreement seems highly unlikely since it is only the less industrialized countries that perceive the high level of IP protection as an impediment to their own socio-economic development. These, however, may not undercut the TRIPS standard independently, nor may groups of countries with similar interests jointly agree on lowering it. Most of the countries concerned fell into that trap of TRIPS because they either underestimated the relevance of overly extensive IP protection when they joined the WTO system, or they wanted to benefit from the free trade amongst Member States provided by GATT, in particular by gaining access to global markets for their domestic products. To achieve this, they accepted the trade-off of a potentially inappropriate level of IP protection. Today, however, the WTO system seems to be even less of a concern compared to the fast increasing number of regional trade agreements that limit the freedom to consider domestic needs to a larger extent than TRIPS. On the other hand, even countries with further developed economies are beginning to understand that inappropriate IP protection might be a serious concern. A forward-looking information society policy, for instance, may suggest substantial limitations of copyright protection. Such attempts, however, risk conflicting with Article 1, paragraph 1, of TRIPS as well. In other words, the trap is of a general nature; it may concern any Member State of the WTO. This chapter shows how potentially negative impacts of this given legal setting may nevertheless be reduced, based on the one hand on flexibilities outside the WTO system, and on the other on the leeway provided by TRIPS. It also explains why the maximum use of such avenues is justifiable.

"Exhaustion" in the Digital Age, in: Irene Calboli, Edward Lee (eds.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Exhaustion and Parallel Imports (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property Series), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2016, 64 - 82.

• The “exhaustion rule” is a rather ambiguous legal construct. The question whether this rule still applies in the digital age may refer to two things: The right to distribute a purchased data carrier further, just as a book may be resold without the consent of the copyright holder (“first-sale doctrine”); or (the traditional view at least in the case of software, but also under patent law) the extent to which the protected subject matter may be used by the purchaser even without an explicit licensing agreement (“implied licence”). The question about the redistribution right, however, is only meaningful in the first of three periods within the digital age, during which physical carriers actually were (and still are) sold. In the second period already, when recorded carriers are not sold anymore but copies are produced via download through users, the circumstances change. Whether or not the first-sale doctrine applies in this period as well is disputed even today. At the latest in the third period, however, in which downloads are replaced by mere streaming, the first-sale doctrine becomes pointless. In this period the other aspect of the “exhaustion rule” comes into play. In fact, in the case of streaming the key question is what the user is allowed to do. This question concerns the user’s own activities, but also (and even more relevantly) whether or not the user – as contractual partner of the right holder – is allowed to assign his or her own users’ rights to a third party. This issue has been discussed broadly in relation to software, but hardly at all regarding works other than software. This paper discusses possible doctrinal approaches to deal with such questions and particularly challenges certain traditional perceptions of copyright law by emphasising the potential of the implied licence to explain transferability of users’ rights. Beyond that it critically evaluates the necessity and desirability of extending the concept of “exhaustion” to the digital world. Finally, it suggests that the discussion is of decreasing practical relevance in view of changing business methods and that consumer protection law rather than copyright law might provide more appropriate protection of users’ interests.
• Available at SSRN

The Role of Enforcement in Delineating the Scope of Intellectual Property Rights, in: Hans-W. Micklitz, Andrea Wechsler (eds.), The Transformation of Enforcement - European Economic Law in a Global Perspective (Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law), Hart Publishing, Oxford 2016, 227 - 243.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 15-03
• According to an unbroken paradigm innovation and creation accrue from strong IP protection – the more the better. Increasing doubts from academic research are continuously ignored. Under-protection is the great concern. Over-exclusivity, however, is not a minor relevance. Lacking competitive pressure due to legally over-protected market positions eliminate incentives to invest as well. Hence, not a maximum, but the right degree of IP protection is required. The current IP system tends to over-exclusivity; never in history was the level of protection reduced with a view to legitimate interests of third parties. As long as enforcement measures were of limited vigour, such overshooting tendencies of IP protection had little impact. With increased attention on enforcement measures, however, the over-protective legal design becomes visible. Such concerns, however, did not yet reach the policy makers, notably not on the EU level. The lack of a balance IP policy in the EU is mirrored by the Directive 48/2004. By limiting the focus on the right, it mistakes that enforcement without limits risks not fostering, but impairing innovation and creation. The current evaluation of the Directive 48/2004 does not give cause for hope that such imbalances would be eliminated. Improvement opportunities, however, exist. Member States first of all should be obliged to establish remedies against dysfunctional enforcement; notably the denial of injunctive relief must become a common procedural instrument. Beyond that, over-exclusivity should be eliminated by dismantling certain property mechanism and replacing them through liability tools (such as extended grounds to claim for compulsory licensing).
• Available at SSRN

Introduction: IP and the Asia-Pacific 'Spaghetti Bowl' of Free Trade Agreements, in: Christoph Antons, Reto M. Hilty (eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region ( MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 24), Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London 2015, 1 - 23 (together with Christoph Antons). DOI

• The contributions to this book show the strategies and policies of countries in the Asia-Pacific region that have to grapple with international standard setting in what has been called the ‘spaghetti bowl’ of criss-crossing free trade agreements. The chapters show how intellectual property is just one among many political and economic factors that are used in trade off discussions. It leads to an often considerable further raising of IP standards in those countries that agree to higher protection levels, often for reasons that have little to do with the provision of incentives for technological progress. A more nuanced picture of IP protection in Asia shows the different interests of high protection countries, ‘first’ and ‘second tier’ newly industrialized and industrializing countries and the rather peculiar position of Australia and New Zealand. The chapter introduces the contributions to this volume according to these various groups of countries and of international law and the political economy of the region.

Rückschnitt durch Differenzierung? - Wege zur Reduktion dysfunktionaler Effekte des Urheberrechts auf Kreativ- und Angebotsmärkte, in: Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media. Festschrift 50 Jahr Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), C.H. Beck, München 2015, 317 - 338 (together with Martin Senftleben).

Vorwort, in: Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media. Festschrift 50 Jahr Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), C.H. Beck, München 2015, IV - X (together with Thomas Dreier).

Legal Effects and Policy Considerations for Free Trade Agreements: What is Wrong with FTAs?, in: Christoph Antons, Reto M. Hilty (eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 24), Springer, Berlin 2015, 55 - 84 (together with Thomas Jaeger). DOI

Reichweite des Rechtsschutzes von Computerprogrammen - Eine Kritik an der EuGH-Rechtsprechung, in: Festschrift für Joachim Bornkamm zum 65. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 797 - 809 (together with Kaya Köklü).

Softwareurheberrecht statt Softwarepatente? Forderungen der deutschen Politik unter der Lupe, in: Festschrift für Helmut Köhler zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 289 - 298.

Vorwort und Einführung in die Thematik, in: Reto M. Hilty, Frauke Henning-Bodewig (eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility - Verbindliche Standards des Wettbewerbsrechts? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 21), Springer, Berlin 2014, 3 - 5 (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig). DOI

• Wirtschaftsethik ist eines der spannendsten Themen der letzten Jahre. Es beschäftigt nicht nur Ökonomen und Politologen, sondern auch die Juristen und hier insbesondere die Wettbewerbsrechtler. Im Fokus steht dabei das Recht zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs, im deutschsprachigen Rechtskreis kurz auch Lauterkeitsrecht genannt. Es hat nicht nur in Deutschland große praktische Bedeutung erlangt. Vielmehr kennen alle entwickelten Wirtschaftsnationen – wenn auch mit unterschiedlichem Ansatz und mit unterschiedlicher Bedeutung – eigenständige Regeln zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs.

Art. 380 bis 393 - Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Heinrich Honsell (ed.), Kurzkommentar Obligationenrecht, Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel 2014, 1395 - 1422.

Verwertung von Urheberrechten - Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Roland von Büren, David Lucas (eds.), Schweizerisches Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht. Zweiter Band - Urheberrecht. Erster Teilband - Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel 2014, 597 - 666.

La limitation de la propriété intellectuelle comme moyen d'encourager l'innovation, in: Le droit de la propriété intellectuelle dans un monde globalisé - Mélanges en l'honneur ou professor Joanna Schmidt-Szalewski (Collection du CEIPI, 61), LexisNexis, Paris 2014, 207 - 219.

Patenting Coffee - IP Protection and Its Impact on Innovation in the Coffee-Capsule Market, in: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation (Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, 3), Springer, Berlin 2014, 489 - 503 (together with Peter R. Slowinski). DOI

• Despite a hard to kill belief patents are not a booster for innovation per se but an instrument of competition and innovation policy that needs to be used in a careful manner and with a clear understanding of its functioning and consequences. In the last decades discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the patenting system have circulated mostly around pharmaceuticals or the information technology. Some of the most important questions addressed in these discussions are the ever rising and unmanageably large number of patents, a phenomenon known as patent thickets, the overlapping of different intellectual property rights, and in consequence the limitation of necessary competition.

Art. 1 und Art. 2, in: Reto M. Hilty, Reto Arpagaus (eds.), Basler Kommentar. Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - UWG, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel 2013, 3 - 153.

Immaterialgüterrecht - Rechtsentwicklungen EU, in: Andreas Kellerhals, Tobias Baumgartner (eds.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2012/13, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2013, 299 - 316 (together with Markus J. Weber).

Immaterialgüterrecht - Kommentar, in: Andreas Kellerhals, Tobias Baumgartner (eds.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2012/13, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2013, 317 - 320 (together with Markus J. Weber).

Collective Copyright Management and Digitization: The European Experience, in: Ruth Towse, Christian Handke (eds.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2013, 222 - 234 (together with Sylvie Nérisson).

• This chapter gives an overview of the impact of digitization on the current activities of Collective Management Organizations and provides perspectives on the future of collective rights management in Europe. First, an introduction shows how the traditional system works, namely, by limiting the freedom of contract of right holders and users on the one hand and by transforming the exclusive rights into an entitlement to remuneration for use on the other. The second section presents the turning point of the legal framework applicable to CRMOs on the European level, a move initiated by two of the Commission's DGs (Directorates General): Internal Market and Services (DG Market) and Competition (DG Comp). The third section will examine the current state of collective rights management in the music and visual domains. The chapter ends with the conclusion that the collective rights management system is currently adapting to digitization notwithstanding the interventions by DG Market, especially in the music sector. In fact, the availability of copyrighted works will heavily rely on collective rights management in the future as well - if not more than ever.
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 13-09

Einleitung vor Art. 1 ff., in: Reto M. Hilty, Claire Huguenin (eds.), Schweizer Obligationenrecht 2020 - Entwurf für einen neuen allgemeinen Teil: OR 2020, Schulthess, Zürich 2013, 1 - 28 (together with Claire Huguenin).

Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 79-84, in: Reto M. Hilty, Claire Huguenin (eds.), Schweizer Obligationenrecht 2020 - Entwurf für einen neuen allgemeinen Teil: OR 2020, Schulthess, Zürich 2013, 243 - 278 (together with Claire Huguenin, Tina Purtschert).

Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 144-147, in: Reto M. Hilty, Claire Huguenin (eds.), Schweizer Obligationenrecht 2020 - Entwurf für einen neuen allgemeinen Teil: OR 2020, Schulthess, Zürich 2013, 412 - 426 (together with Tina Purtschert).

Keynote, in: Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (eds.), The Enforcement of Patents (Max Planck Series of Asian Intellectual Property Law, 16), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2012, 9 - 31.

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2011/12, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2012, 265 - 295 (together with Markus J. Weber).

The Balance of Copyright, in: Karen B. Brown, David V. Snyder (eds.), General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law / Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé, Springer, Dordrecht 2012, 355 - 392 (together with Sylvie Nérisson).

License Agreements, in: Jürgen Basedow et al. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012, 1098 - 1102.

Reflections on a European Copyright Codification, in: Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law - Challenges and Perspectives (Information Law Series, 29), Wolters Kluwer Law, Alphen aan den Rijn 2012, 355 - 372.

Switzerland, in: Reto M. Hilty, Sylvie Nérisson (eds.), Balancing Copyright - A Survey of National Approaches (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 18), Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 2012, 977 - 1093 (together with Markus J. Weber). DOI

Economic, legal and social impacts of counterfeiting, in: Christophe Geiger (ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property - A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2012, 9 - 23.

Potenzial und Grenzen der Revision von Art. 5 KG, in: Roger Zäch, Rolf H. Weber, Andreas Heinemann (eds.), Revision des Kartellgesetzes - kritische Würdigung der Botschaft 2012 durch Zürcher Kartellrechtler, Dike, St. Gallen, Zürich 2012, 81 - 103 (together with Alfred Früh).

Introduction, in: Reto M. Hilty, Kung-Chung Liu (eds.), The Enforcement of Patents (Max Planck Series of Asian Intellectual Property Law, 16), Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2012, 1 - 6 (together with Kung-Chung Liu).

Individual, multiple and collective ownership: what impact on competition?, in: Jan Rosén (ed.), Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law (ATRIP intellectual property), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2012, 3 - 44.

Overview, in: Reto M. Hilty, Sylvie Nérisson (eds.), Balancing Copyright - A Survey of National Approaches (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 18), Springer, Berlin 2012, 1 - 78 (together with Sylvie Nérisson). DOI

• Also published as: Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 12-05
• Available at SSRN

Open Approaches, in: Kommunikation - Festschrift für Rolf H. Weber zum 60. Geburtstag, Stämpfli Verlag, Bern 2011, 83 - 108.

Zur Reichweite der fingierten Nutzungsrechtseinräumung gemäß § 137l UrhG, in: Kunst, Recht und Geld - Festschrift für Gerhard Pfennig zum 65. Geburtstag, Beck, München 2011, 289 - 299 (together with Kaya Köklü).

Vorwort, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger, Matthias Lamping (eds.), Herausforderung Innovation - Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 17), Springer, Heidelberg 2011, V - VII.

Der Verlagsvertrag (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand (eds.), Basler Kommentar - Obligationenrecht I, 5. ed., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 2011, 2413 - 2449.

Towards a New Instrument of Protection for Software in the EU? - Learning the Lessons from the Harmonization Failure of Software Patentability, in: Gustavo Ghidini, Emanuela Arezzo (eds.), Biotechnology And Software Patent Law - A Comparative Review of New Developments, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, 153 - 192 (together with Christophe Geiger).

Rechtemanagement und Urheberrecht im Online-Zeitalter - Funktioniert das Modell der Ausschließlichkeit und der individuellen Rechteverwertung, in: K. Stern, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, K. E. Hain (eds.), Werkvermittlung und Rechtemanagement im Zeitalter von Google und Youtube - Urheberrechtliche Lösungen für die audiovisuelle Medienwelt (Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Rundfunkrecht an der Universität zu Köln, 104), Beck, München 2011, 71 - 89.

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2010/11, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2011, 287 - 310.

Trennungsprinzip - Quo vadis, Germania?, in: 50 Jahre Bundespatentgericht - Festschrift zum 50-jährigen Bestehen des Bundespatentgerichts am 1. Juli 2011, Carl Heymanns, Köln 2011, 255 - 273 (together with Matthias Lamping).

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2009/10, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2010, 225 - 254.

Kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung und Vergütungsregelungen: Harmonisierungsbedarf und -möglichkeiten, in: Matthias Leistner (ed.), Europäische Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums (Geistiges Eigentum und Wettbewerbsrecht, 41), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2010, 123 - 166.

Schweizerisches Urheberrecht (§ 52), in: Ulrich Loewenheim (ed.), Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2. ed., C. H. Beck, München 2010, 975 - 1022.

Kommentierung von Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. d, in: Marc Amstutz, Mani Reinert (eds.), Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel 2010, 577 - 588.

Kommentierung von Art. 3 Abs. 2, in: Marc Amstutz, Mani Reinert (eds.), Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel 2010, 102 - 147.

Urheberrecht im Wandel - 10 Thesen zum Urheberrecht, in: Michael Bartsch, Robert G. Briner (eds.), DGRI Jahrbuch 2010 (Informatik und Recht, 20), Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2010, 1 - 18.

Immaterialgüterrecht - Rechtsentwicklungen EG, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz - EG - Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2008/09, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2009, 197 - 210 (together with Tobias Baumgartner).

Türkisches Urheberrecht und Europäischer Acquis Communautaire, in: Yeşim M. Atamer, Klaus J. Hopt (eds.), Kompatibilität des türkischen und europäischen Wirtschaftsrechts, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2009, 309 - 324.

Ungereimtheiten auf der urheberrechtlichen Wertschöpfungskette. Der Wissenschaftsmarkt als Prüfstein für die urheberrechtliche Zwangslizenz, in: Schutz von Kreativität und Wettbewerb - Festschrift für Ulrich Loewenheim zum 75. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2009, 119 - 135.

Legal Protection of Cultural Heritage in a World of Intellectual Property Rights, 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, 763 - 779.

Open Innovation in einer Welt mit geistigem Eigentum, in: Arnold Picot, Stefan Doeblin (eds.), Innovationsführerschaft durch Open Innovation. Chancen für die Telekommunikations-, IT- und Medienindustrie, Springer, Berlin 2009, 171 - 185.

The role of patent quality in Europe, in: Technology and Competition - Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich, Larcier, Brüssel 2009, 91 - 121.

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz - EG - Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2008/09, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2009, 211 - 223.

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz - EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2007/08, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2008, 153 - 171.

Der Verlagsvertrag (Art. 380 – 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell (ed.), Kurzkommentar Obligationenrecht, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 2008, 1435 - 1461.

Herausforderung Durchsetzung – Kontrapunkte, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger, Volker Kitz (eds.), Geistiges Eigentum – Herausforderung Durchsetzung (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 4), Springer, Berlin 2008, V - IX.

Sündenbock Urheberrecht?, in: Ansgar Ohly, Diethelm Klippel (eds.), Geistiges Eigentum und Gemeinfreiheit (Geistiges Eigentum und Wettbewerbsrecht, 11), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2007, 107 - 144.

The Law Against Unfair Competition and Its Interfaces, in: Reto M. Hilty, Frauke Henning-Bodewig (eds.), Law Against Unfair Competition. Towards a New Paradigm in Europe? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 1), Springer, Berlin 2007, 1 - 52.

The Expansion of Copyright Law and its Social Justification, in: Christopher Heath, Kung Chung Liu (eds.), Copyright Law and the Information Society in Asia (IIC Studies, 26), Hart Publishing, Oxford 2007, 1 - 31.

Der Verlagsvertrag (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand (eds.), Obligationenrecht, 4. ed., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 2007, 2339 - 2375.

Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie zur Harmonisierung bestimmter Aspekte des Urheberrechts und der verwandten Schutzrechte in der Informationsgesellschaft - Kritische Analyse und Vorausschau Deutschland, 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, 51 - 61.

Märkte und Schutzrechte, in: Jens Beckert, Rainer Diaz-Bone, Heiner Ganßmann (eds.), Märkte als soziale Strukturen (Theorie und Gesellschaft, 63), Campus-Verl., Frankfurt 2007, 235 - 250.

Copyright Law and Scientific Research, in: Paul Torremans (ed.), Copyright Law. A Handbook on Contemporary Research (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2007, 315 - 354.

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar, Bd. 2006/07, Dike Verlag, Zürich, St. Gallen 2007, 135 - 155.

Lizenzverträge und Art. 5 KG, in: Roger Zäch (ed.), Das revidierte Kartellgesetz in der Praxis, Schulthess, Zürich 2006, 27 - 81.

"Leistungsschutz" - made in Switzerland? Klärung eines Missverständnisses und Überlegungen zum allgemeinen Schutz von Investitionen, in: Festschrift für Eike Ullmann, juris GmbH, Saarbrücken 2006, 643 - 667.

Immaterialgüterrecht, in: Andreas Kellerhals (ed.), Wirtschaftsrecht Schweiz-EG. Überblick und Kommentar 2005/06, Dike, Zürich, St. Gallen 2006, 127 - 139.

Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Roland von Büren, Lucas David (eds.), Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Schweizerisches Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, II,1), 2. ed., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 2006, 557 - 629.

Verbotsrecht vs. Vergütungsanspruch: Suche nach den Konsequenzen der tripolaren Interessenlage im Urheberrecht, in: Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts. Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2005, 325 - 353.

Urheberrecht und Wissenschaft, in: Ulrich Sieber, Thomas Hoeren (eds.), Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft. Anforderungen an das Zweite Gesetz zur Regelung des Urheberrechts in der Informationsgesellschaft (Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik, 2005,2), HRK, Bonn 2005, 174 - 192.

Entwicklungsperspektiven des Schutzes Geistigen Eigentums in Europa, in: Peter Behrens (ed.), Stand und Perspektiven des Schutzes Geistigen Eigentums in Europa. Wissenschaftliches Symposium im Europa-Kolleg Hamburg (Schriftenreihe des Europa-Kollegs Hamburg zur Integrationsforschung, 43), Nomos, Baden-Baden 2004, 139 - 188.

Vermögensübertragung nach Fusionsgesetz: Auswirkungen auf Verträge am Beispiel des Lizenzvertrages, in: Aktuelle Fragen des Bank- und Finanzmarktrechts - Festschrift für Dieter Zobl zum 60. Geburtstag, Schulthess, Zürich 2004, 565 - 580.

Schutzgegenstand und Schutzbereich - Überlegungen zur Formulierung von Patentansprüchen, in: Materielles Patentrecht. Festschrift für Reimar König, Heymanns, Köln 2003, 167 - 216.

Leistungsstörungsrecht beim Technologietransfer: Schweizer Recht im Zugzwang des deutschen BGB?, in: Aktuelle Aspekte des Schuld- und Sachenrechts. Festschrift für Heinz Rey zum 60. Geburtstag, Schulthess, Zürich 2003, 217 - 234.

Schweizerisches Urheberrecht (§ 52), in: Ulrich Loewenheim (ed.), Handbuch des Urheberrechts, C. H. Beck, München 2003, 827 - 861.

Kommentar zum Verlagsvertragsrecht (Art. 380-393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim P. Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand (eds.), Basler Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Obligationenrecht, 3. ed., Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel 2003.

Softwarevertrag - Qualifikation im Lichte des gesetzlichen Gebrauchsrechts, in: Besonderes Vertragsrecht - aktuelle Probleme. Festschrift für Heinrich Honsell zum 60. Geburtstag, Schulthess, Zürich 2002, 61 - 85.

Zur Zulässigkeit des "Link" - rechtliches Damoklesschwert für die Internettechnologie?, in: Reto M. Hilty, Rolf H. Weber, Rolf Auf der Maur (eds.), Geschäftsplattform Internet. Rechtliche und praktische Aspekte, Bd. III: Kapitalmarkt - Marktauftritt - Besteuerung (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 17), Schulthess, Zürich 2002, 123 - 166.

Urhebervertragsrecht - Schweiz im Zugzwang?, in: Reto M. Hilty, Mathis Berger (eds.), Urheberrecht am Scheideweg? (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, 59), Stämpfli, Bern 2002, 87 - 124.

Unübertragbarkeit urheberrechtlicher Befugnisse - ein dogmatisches Ammenmärchen?, in: Recht im Wandel seines sozialen und technologischen Umfeldes. Festschrift für Manfred Rehbinder, C. H. Beck, München 2002, 259 - 284.

Urheberrecht - Schutz oder Bürde im digitalen Zeitalter?, in: Hans Rudolf Trüeb (ed.), Aktuelle Rechtsfragen des E-Commerce, Schulthess, Zürich 2001, 63 - 82.

Produktehaftpflicht und Lizenzverträge, in: Alexander Brunner (ed.), Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Konsumentenrechts 2000, 73 - 100.

Vom Janusgesicht des Immaterialgüterrechts - Versuch einer europatauglichen Interpretation von Art. 3 Abs. 2 KG, in: Der Einfluss des europäischen Rechts auf die Schweiz - Festschrift für Roger Zäch, Schulthess, Zürich 1999, 325 - 346.

Rechtsfragen kommerzieller Natur von Daten, in: Rolf H. Weber, Reto M. Hilty (eds.), Daten und Datenbanken - Rechtsfragen zu Schutz und Nutzung (Publikationen aus dem Zentrum für Informations- und Kommunikationsrecht der Universität Zürich, 4), Schulthess, Nomos, Zürich, Baden-Baden 1999, 82 - 133.

Die Rechtsbeziehungen rund um den Information Highway, in: Reto M. Hilty (ed.), Information Highway - Beiträge zu rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Fragen, Stämpfli, C.H. Beck, Bern, München 1996, 437 - 488.

Information Highway - eine Einführung in die Problematik, in: Reto M. Hilty (ed.), Information Highway - Beiträge zu rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Fragen, Stämpfli, C.H. Beck, Bern, München 1996, 21 - 42.

Kommentar zum Verlagsvertragsrecht (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, D. Zobl (eds.), Kommentar zum OR, 2. ed., Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 1996, 2067 - 2103.

Der Verlagsvertrag, in: Roland von Büren, L. David (eds.), Schweizerisches Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Bd. II/1: Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 1995, 517 - 581.

Die Rechtsgrundlage des Lizenzvertrags, in: Hans Ulrich Walder, T. Jaag, D. Zobl (eds.), Aspekte des Wirtschaftsrechts - Festgabe zum Schweizerischen Juristentag 1994, Schulthess, Zürich 1994, 111 - 127.

Fragen zur Entwicklung des schweizerischen Verlagsrechts, in: Elmar Wadle (ed.), Historische Studien zum Urheberrecht in Europa - Entwicklungslinien und Grundfragen (Schriften zur Europäischen Rechts- und Verfassungsgeschichte, 10), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1993, 207 - 224.

Kommentar zum Verlagsvertragsrecht (Art. 380 - 393 OR), in: Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, D. Zobl (eds.), Kommentar zum OR, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel 1992, 1923 - 1960.

Das Basler Nachdruckverbot von 1531 im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Entwicklung des Urheberrechts, in: Robert Dittrich (ed.), Die Notwendigkeit des Urheberrechtsschutzes im Lichte seiner Geschiche (Österreichische Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Urheber- und Medienrecht, 9), Manz, Wien 1991, 20 - 45.

Die Bedeutung des Ursprungslandes in der Berner Übereinkunft, in: Schweizerische Vereinigung für Urheberrecht (ed.), Die Berner Übereinkunft und die Schweiz - Schweizerische Festschrift zum einhundertjährigen Bestehen der Berner Übereinkunft zum Schutze von Werken der Literatur und Kunst (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht, 16) 1986, 201 - 218.

Journal Articles

Patente sichern schnelle Impfung, FAZ 23.02.2021, 16.

• https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/patente-sichern-schnelle-impfung-patente-fuer-impfstoffe-17212947.html

Covid-Impfstoffe für alle: Was Staaten tun können – und wieso das Aussetzen von Patenten nichts bringt, Ifo-Schnelldienst 74, 8 (2021), 12 - 15.

The New GRUR International, GRUR Int 69, 1 (2020), 1 - 2 (together with Josef Drexl). DOI

Foreword to the 50th Volume, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 1 - 3 (together with Josef Drexl). DOI

Joseph Straus zum 80. Geburtstag, GRUR Int 67, 12 (2018), 1109 - 1112 (together with Josef Drexl).

Kontrolle der digitalen Werknutzung zwischen Vertrag und Erschöpfung, GRUR 120, 9 (2018), 865 - 880.

Daten zu verkaufen – Die Politik will Eigentumsrechte schaffen und Informationen zum handelbaren Gut machen – ein riskanter Vorstoß, Süddeutsche Zeitung 11.09.2017.

• http://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung/SZ_110917_Daten_zu_verkaufen_Gastbeitrag_RH.pdf

Patent Declaration: Reasons and Purposes, UC Irvine Law Review 16, 3 (2016), 469 - 482 (together with Matthias Lamping).

• http://bit.ly/2marpE5

Urheberrechtliche Beurteilung von "Embedding", sic! 20, 5 (2016), 237 - 250 (together with Oliver Schmid, Markus Weber).

• Radio- und TV-Veranstalter bieten ihre Sendungen häufig auf ihren Websites in Form von Streams an, auf die entweder «live» (also laufend, zeitgleich und unverändert zur Originalsendung) zugegriffen werden kann oder die als On-Demand-Service (d.h. in Form einer fest gespeicherten Datei) bei Bedarf, also zu einem Zeitpunkt nach der Wahl des Nutzers, abgerufen werden können. Mithilfe von sog. Embedding können Embedding-Provider den Endnutzern Streams auf ihren eigenen Websites zum Konsum zur Verfügung stellen. Die Streams werden dabei direkt vom Server oder Radio-/TV-Veranstalter abgerufen und von der betreffenden Website abgespielt. Der Datenverkehr wird mithin auf den Servern der Radio-/TV-Veranstalter generiert; diese tragen auch die mit dem Streaming verbundenen Kosten. Der Nutzer kann das Online-Angebot der Radio-/TV-Veranstalter aber konsumieren, ohne auf deren Internetpräsenz zu wechseln. Dieser Vorgang wirft – soweit es sich bei den von Embedding erfassten Inhalten um geschützte Werke handelt – eine Reihe von urheberrechtlichen Fragestellungen auf, denen im folgenden Beitrag nachgegangen wird.
• Les diffuseurs radio/TV mettent souvent leurs émissions à disposition sur leur site Internet sous forme de streams, auxquels l’on peut accéder soit en «live» (donc en continu, simultanément et sans modification par rapport à l’émission originale) soit comme service à la demande (c’est-à-dire sous forme de données enregistrées) en cas de besoin, à savoir à un moment qui dépend du choix de l’utilisateur. Par ce que l’on appelle l’embedding, les fournisseurs d’embedding mettent à disposition des utilisateurs finaux des streams pouvant être consultés sur leur propre site Internet. Dans ces cas, on accède aux streams directement depuis le serveur ou l’organisme de diffusion radio/TV ; les streams sont alors diffusés directement depuis le site Internet en question. Le trafic des données est ainsi généré sur les serveurs des organismes de diffusion radio/TV; ces derniers supportent également les coûts liés au streaming. L’utilisateur peut cependant consommer l’offre en ligne des diffuseurs radio/TV sans devoir passer par leur site Internet. Pour autant que le contenu qui fait l’objet de l’embedding constitue une œuvre protégée, cette façon de procéder pose toute une série de questions liées au droit d’auteur; ces dernières font l’objet de la présente contribution.

Patente und Patentschutz - Segen oder Fluch für den Innovationsstandort Deutschland?, Audit Committee Quarterly I/2015 (2015), 22 - 23.

Standardessentielle Patente – Perspektiven außerhalb des Kartellrechts, GRUR Int 64, 9 (2015), 781 - 792 (together with Peter R. Slowinski).

Declaration on Patent Protection: Regulatory Sovereignty under TRIPS (in Japanese), Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal 45 (2014), 1 - 32.

Declaration on Patent Protection, IIC 45, 6 (2014), 679 - 698 (together with Dan L. Burk et al.). DOI

• Auch veröffentlicht in: Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal, 2014, Vol. 45, 1 - 32 (in Japanese)
• As a framework regulation for innovation markets, the patent system needs to be tailored to the innovation process, which it is supposed to serve, and to the competitive environment, within which it must operate. In order to ensure an efficient functionality of the patent system as an innovation policy tool, patent rights ought to be defined, justified and continually reconsidered by reference to their socio-economic benefits and costs.
  
  Sovereign states should retain the discretion to adopt a patent system that best suits their technological capabilities as well as their social, cultural and economic needs and priorities, with the proviso that the exercise of such discretion must remain within the boundaries of international law. Taking into account the customary principles of interpretation of international law, this Declaration seeks to shed light on these boundaries. The purpose is to clarify the policy space that the ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ (TRIPS Agreement) leaves to national legislators and judicial authorities with regard to the implementation and administration of their patent systems.
  
  When the world’s major patent systems first developed into their present form, nation states were able to engage in the regulatory design process under conditions of high sovereign autonomy. Over the past decades, this autonomy has been progressively eroded. Today, states face a legal and institutional regime consisting of multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements, which are becoming increasingly complex and set more and more limits to their regulatory freedom.
  
  As a result, the ability of states to maintain a proper balance between the need for protection of knowledge goods in global markets, the freedom to regulate national or regional innovation markets, and the policy space for pursuing diverse public interest goals risks becoming unduly constrained. This Declaration seeks to clarify some of the regulatory options states still retain under international law, in particular the TRIPS Agreement.
• Auch veröffentlicht als Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-19
• http://bit.ly/2kIgLUI

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

Software Agreements: Stocktaking and Outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle Case from a Comparative Law Perspective, IIC 44, 3 (2013), 263 - 292 (together with Kaya Köklü, Fabian Hafenbrädl). DOI

Wieso wir Milch im Kühlschrank haben oder Konsequenzen von Wertschöpfungsketten (dreisprachig: Deutsch, Französisch, Italienisch), Gazzetta / ProLitteris 52, Sonderheft Urheberrecht (2012), 68 - 72.

Die Rechtsnatur des Softwarevertrages. Erkenntnisse aus der Entscheidung des EuGH UsedSoft vs. Oracle, Computer und Recht 28, 10 (2012), 625 - 637.

Optionales europäisches Vertragsrecht ("28. Modell"): "Geistiges Eigentum", Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 76, 2 (2012), 339 - 373. DOI

• In the search for the “28th model“, a glance at the European acquis communautaire could lead us to assume that intellectual property is in the vanguard and that the establishment of an optional instrument has proven to be a model of success. All that was actually created, however, were two supranational legal systems, namely in trade mark law and in design law. The terrain for these two regulations, from 1993 and 2002, respectively, was certainly well-cleared, for the corresponding national regimes had for the most part already been harmonised via directives in 1988 and 1998. These two EU regulations thus did not compete with the national legal systems so much in terms of content as with respect to their geographic scope. A registrant primarily chooses EU legal title when he or she intends to do business in the EU and not strictly within national boundaries. The European Patent Convention (1973), on the contrary, is not only not a legal entity of the EU, but it also is based on an independent supranational construct, the European Patent Organisation. Furthermore, the Convention's intended purpose is limited to centralising the procedures leading up to the grant of patents for the participating, currently 38, member states. Once granted, however, the so-called bundle patents are for the most part on a par with the nationally granted patents. A true supranational patent-law title has not been achieved yet, despite decades-long efforts. The “enhanced cooperation“ between 25 member states (Spain and Italy not included) that is currently being discussed will likewise not be able to stand in for an EU patent - not to mention the open question of whether business and industry would even accept such a construct. In the area of copyright, again, certain vague ideas have recently been brought into play that point towards an EU right, though without any concrete details, and such a thing as an EU copyright - assuming discussion on this topic does not soon fade away on its own - certainly lies far in the future. It is especially striking that agreements on intellectual property rights - which practically speaking are incredibly important - have never played a part in the previous initiatives for a unifi ed European contract law. It is in relation to just these types of contracts that an optional “28 th model“ seems the most obvious choice for markedly increasing legal certainty in the outcome of court disputes. Indeed, more innovation and competitiveness cannot be gained through the abstract reinforcement of legal protection alone; what is further necessary is a knowledge transfer as comprehensive as possible. First and foremost, this requires an appropriate contract law that is capable of providing for the particularities of each contractual subject.

La Constitution Économique Européenne et la Propriété Intellectuelle, Revue internationale de droit économique 25, 4 (2011), 481 - 510.

Declaration on the “Three-Step Test” - Where do we go from here?, Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 1.2 (2010), 83 - 86.

• The “Declaration on a balanced interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’” as such cannot solve the problem of lacking limitations; however, it emphasizes that the existing international legislation does not prohibit further amendments to copyright law. Nations that dispose of the political will are in a position to introduce new limitations. In addition, further international agreements focusing on new limitations may be negotiated among those countries that are ready to do so.
• https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-1-2-2010/2614

Vertikalvereinbarungen im schweizerischen Kartellrecht - übersehene Probleme einer volkswirtschaftlichen Insel, sic! 2010, 877 - 888 (together with Alfred Früh).

Rationales for the Legal Protection of Intangible Goods and Cultural Heritage, IIC 40, 8 (2009), 883 - 911.

Renaissance der Zwangslizenzen im Urheberrecht? Gedanken zu Ungereimtheiten auf der urheberrechtlichen Wertschöpfungskette, GRUR 111, 7 (2009), 633 - 644.

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 Thomas Jaeger et al.).

On the Basic Principle of the Legal Protection on Intangible Products and Cultural Heritage (in chinesischer Spache), Intellectual Property Rights Annual Journal 2009, 1 - 26.

Gretchenfrage der liberalen Wirtschaftsordnung - Patentschutz soll vor billigen Nachahmerprodukten schützen, NZZ am Sonntag 13.04.2008, 23 (together with Adrian M. Gautschi).

sic! - 10 Jahre an der Front, sic! 2008, 1 - 3.

Das Zweite Gesetz zur Regelung des Urheberrechts in der Informationsgesellschaft (Zweiter Korb) - ein Beitrag aus Wissenschaftssicht, ZfBB 55, 5 (2008), 257 - 263 (together with Benjamin Bajon).

Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law, EIPR 4 (2008), 489 - 496 (together with Christophe Geiger, Jonathan Griffiths).

Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the „Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law, IIC 39, 6 (2008), 707 - 712 (together with Christophe Geiger, Jonathan Griffiths).

• Also published in: EIPR 30 (2008) 12, 489 - 499 u.d.T: Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the "Three-Step Test" in Copyright Law
• Also published in: Auteurs-, Media- & Informatierecht (AMI) 33 (2009) 1, 8 - 11
• Also published in: JIPITEC 1 (2010) 2, 119 - 122 (weiterer Autor: Uma Suthersanen )
• French translation: Déclaration en vue d'une interprétation du "test des trois étapes" respectant les équilibres du droit d'auteur, Auteurs & Media (2008) 6, 516 - 520
• French translation: Déclaration en vue d'une interprétation du "test des trois étapes" respectant les équilibres du droit d'auteur, Les Cahiers de Proprieté Intellectuelle 24 (2012) 1, 147 - 156
• French translation: Déclaration en vue d'une interprétation du "test des trois étapes" respectant les équilibres du droit d'auteur, Propriétés intellectuelle (2008) 29, 399 - 402
• German translation: Erklärung für eine ausgewogene Auslegung des Drei-Stufen-Tests im Urheberrecht, GRUR Int 57 (2008) 10, 822 - 825
• Spanish translation in: Actas de derecho industrial y derecho de autor 28 (2007-08), 1509 - 1516
• Portuguese translation: Declaração sobre o "Teste dos Três Passos" do direito, Direito da sociedade da informação 8 (2009), 471 - 482
• Italian tanslation in: Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica 2009, 159 - 165
• Japanese translation: Digital Content Association of Japan (DCAJ), « Research on the introduction of fair-use provisions into Japanese copyright law », Annual Report of the Digital Content Association of Japan 2009, 69

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.).

Falsch verstandener Heimatschutz. Das Urheberrecht darf nicht zu einem Instrument gegen die Wissenschaft ausarten, Süddeutsche Zeitung 12.04.2007, 18.

Copyright Law and the Information Society - Neglected Adjustments and Their Consequences, IIC 38, 2 (2007), 135 - 136.

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

Das Urheberrecht und der Wissenschaftler, GRUR Int 55, 3 (2006), 179 - 190.

Five Lessons about Copyright in the Information Society: Reaction of the Scientific Community to Over-Protection and what Policy Makers Should Learn, Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 53, 1/2 (2006), 103 - 138.

Sportverbände wollen Werbemonopol diktieren, Plädoyer - das Magazin für Recht und Politik 4 (2006), 20 - 22 (together with Florent Thouvenin).

Stellungnahme zur Anpassung des UWG: Ambush Marketing, sic! 10 (2006), 702 - 713 (together with Hans Caspar von der Crone, Rolf H. Weber).

First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases - Comment by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, IIC 37, 5 (2006), 551 - 558 (together with Annette Kur et al.).

La privatisation de l'information par la propriété intellectuelle: problème et perspectives. Introduction, Revue internationale de droit économique 2006, 353 - 359.

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

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

Patenting Software? - A Judicial and Socio-Economic Analysis, IIC 36, 6 (2005), 615 - 647 (together with Christophe Geiger).

Breveter le logiciel? - Une analyse juridique et socio-économique, Propriétés intellectuelles 16 (2005), 296 - 312 (together with Christophe Geiger).

Vergütungssystem und Schrankenregelungen - Neue Herausforderungen an den Gesetzgeber, GRUR 107, 10 (2005), 819 - 828.

L'avenir du droit d'auteur dans le "dilemme numérique", Revue Lamy droit de l'immatériel 1 (2005), 49 - 51.

La transposition de la directive sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de l’information. Analyse critique et prospective, Propriétés intellectuelles 15 (2005), 140 - 145.

Intransparenz der Industrie verhindern. Stammzellenforschung im Lichte der Patentgesetzrevision, NZZ 17.11.2004, 16.

Der „zweite Korb” - ein erster Schritt in die richtige Richtung, MMR 7, 11 (2004), 713 - 714.

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

Intellectual Property and the European Community's Internal Market Legislation - Copyright in the Internal Market - Harmonisation vs. Community Copyright Law, IIC 35, 7 (2004), 760 - 775.

Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft – Schweizer Modell vs. Europäische Vorgaben, sic! 12 (2004), 966 - 980.

“Equitable Remuneration” in Copyright Law: The Amended German Copyright Act as a Trap for the Entertainment Industry in the U.S.?, Cardozo arts & entertainment law journal 22, 2 (2004), 401 - 450 (together with Alexander Peukert).

Der Softwarevertrag - ein Blick in die Zukunft: Konsequenzen der trägerlosen Nutzung und des patentrechtlichen Schutzes von Software, MMR 6, 1 (2003), 3 - 15.

Eldred v. Ashcroft: Die Schutzfrist im Urheberrecht - eine Diskussion, die auch Europäer interessieren sollte, GRUR Int 52, 3 (2003), 201 - 204.

Urheberrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft: "Wer will was von wem woraus?" - Ein Auftakt zum "zweiten Korb", ZUM Sonderheft 47 (2003), 983 - 1005.

Elektronischer Pressespiegel: iura novit curia?, sic! 3 (2003), 266 - 273.

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.).

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 Josef Drexl, 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 Josef Drexl, Annette Kur).

Copyright in a Digital Dilemma, MaxPlanckResearch 3 (2003), 48 - 52.

Das neue deutsche Urhebervertragsrecht im internationalen Kontext, GRUR Int 8/9 (2002), 643 - 668 (together with Alexander Peukert).

Rechtsschutz technischer Maßnahmen - zum UrhG-Regierungsentwurf vom 31.7.2002, MMR 2002, 577 - 578.

Besserer Schutz vor Nachahmung - eine Entgegnung auf die Kritik am neuen Designgesetz, NZZ 15.05.2001, 17.

Verbot von Parallelimporten - Heimatschutz oder Schildbürgerstreich? Eine rechtliche Kritik, eine ökonomische Analyse - und ein Regelungsvorschlag zwischen Schwarz und Weiss, sic! 2000, 231 - 241.

Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz vor der Rechtsentstehung? - Ein Diskussionsbeitrag, sic! 1997, 341 - 346.

Der Schutz von Computerprogrammen - nationale und internationale Normen auf dem Prüfstand des Internets, sic! 1997, 128 - 142.

Gedanken zu einem künftigen Gesamtarbeitsvertrag für Journalisten, Arbeitsrecht aktuell 1994, 47 - 63.

Die Leistungsschutzrechte im schweizerischen Urheberrechtsgesetz, UFITA 124 (1994), 85 - 140.

Das neue schweizerische Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. Oktober 1992, ZUM 1994, 25 - 27.

Zum urheberrechtlichen Leistungsschutz im schweizerischen Recht am Beispiel des Tonträgerproduzenten - Versuch einer dogmatischen Begründung, GRUR Int 42, 11 (1993), 818 - 825.

Die Behandlung gemeinfrei gewordener Werke angesichts der Schutzfristverlängerung im neuen Urheberrecht, AJP 1993, 594 - 598.

Die Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs schweizerischer und europäischer Patente, AJP 1993, 396 - 413.

Die Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs nach schweizerischem Patentrecht im Lichte des europäischen Patentübereinkommens, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 1993, 1 - 18.

Rechtsdogmatisches zur Übertragung von Urheberrechten und gewerblichen Schutzrechten, insbesondere zur Frage des Gutglaubensschutzes obligatorisch Berechtigter, Schweizerische Mitteilungen über Immaterialgüterrecht 2 (1992), 211 - 221.

Gedanken zum Schutze der nachbarrechtlichen Leistung - einst, heute und morgen, UFITA 116 (1991), 35 - 58.

Case notes

"Hobby-Kalender": Anmerkung zum Urteil des Bundesgerichts vom 19. August 2002, sic! 2003, 29 - 31.

Reviews

Review of: Osterwalder, Simon: Übertragungsrechte an Sportveranstaltungen. Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht Bd. 73, Stämpfli Verlag, C.H. Beck, Bern 2004, LVII + 432 S., ISBN 3-7272-1872-X, ISBN 3-406-51953-9, GRUR Int 54, 7 (2005), 621 - 625.

Review of: Loewenheim, Ulrich (Hrsg.): Urheberrecht im Informationszeitalter. Festschrift für Wilhelm Nordemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Beck, München 2004, XIV, 754 S., Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 57, 48 (2004), 3477 - 3478.

Review of: Heinemann, Andreas: Immaterialgüterschutz in der Wettbewerbsordnung. Eine grundlagenorientierte Untersuchung zum Kartellrecht des geistigen Eigentums. (Zugl.: München, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2000.) Jus privatum Bd. 65, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2002, XXXIV, 688 S., Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 68, 3 (2004), 572 - 587.

Review of: Joanna Schmidt-Szalewski & Jean-Luc Pierre: Droit de la Propriété Industrielle. 2nd ed. Paris 2001. 621 S., IIC 34, 1 (2003), 113 - 114.

Review of: Ruckstuhl, Antje: Rechtliche Aspekte des Gesamtarbeitsvertrages 2000 für Journalistinnen/Journalisten und das technische Redaktionspersonal. ArbR, 2000, S. 123 - 133, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 2001, 189 - 193.

Review of: Bühler, Lukas: Schweizerisches und internationales Urheberrecht im Internet. (Arbeiten aus dem Iuristischen Seminar der Universität Freiburg Schweiz; 185), Universitätsverlag, Freiburg 1999, LXVII + 431 S. ISBN: 3-7278-1262-1, Medialex - revue de droit de la communication 3 (2000), 175.

Review of: Geiser, Thomas: Haftung bei neuen Arbeitsformen (Job Sharing, Computer-Arbeitsplätze, Personalverleih). AJP, 1997, 787 - 796, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1998, 205 - 206.

Review of: Fellmann, Walter: Abgrenzung der Dienstleistungsverträge zum Arbeitsvertrag und zur Erbringung von Leistungen als Organ einer Gesellschaft. AJP, 1997, 172 - 180, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1998, 190 - 192.

Review of: Straub, Wolfgang: Mehrfache Berechtigung von Marken. Lizenzen, Rechtsgemeinschaften, Teilübertragungen, Pfandrechte, fiduziarische Übertragungen, Konzernmarken. (Schriften zum Medien- und Immaterialgüterrecht; 44) Stämpfli, Bern 1998. XXXII + 183 S., sic! 7 (1998), 443 - 444.

Review of: Dreier, Thomas / Rudolf Krasser (Hg.): Das französische Gesetzbuch des geistigen Eigentums - Code de la propriété intellectuelle. VCH, Weinheim 1994, XVII + 320 S., UFITA 133 (1997), 308 - 311.

Review of: Caduff, Melchior: Die urheberrechtlichen Konsequenzen der Veräusserung von Computerprogrammen. (Abhandlungen zum schweizerischen Recht; 599), Stämpfli, Bern 1997, XX + 184 S., Medialex - revue de droit de la communication 1997, 237 - 238.

Review of: Grob, Franziska Barbara: Die Programmautonomie von Radio und Fernsehen in der Schweiz. (Zürcher Studien zum öffentlichen Recht; 113), Schulthess, Zürich 1994, XXXII + 403 S., Medialex - revue de droit de la communication 1996, 58 - 59.

Review of: Pres, Andreas: Gestaltungsformen urheberrechtlicher Softwarelizenzvertrage - eine juristische und ökonomische Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung der Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 9. Juni 1993. (Rechtsfragen der Wirtschaft; 6), O. Schmidt, Köln 1994, XXXIII + 274 S., UFITA 130 (1996), 290 - 292.

Review of: Graffenried, Christoph von: Vermögensrechtliche Ansprüche bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen - eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung nach deutschem, österreichischem, französischem, amerikanischem und schweizerischem Recht. (Schriftenreihe zum Obligationenrecht; 43), Schulthess, Zürich 1993, XXII + 240 S., UFITA 130 (1996), 286 - 288.

Review of: Weber, Rolf H.: Vom Monopol zum Wettbewerb - Regulierung der Kommunikationsmärkte im Wandel. Schulthess, Zürich 1994, XXXVII + 303 S., ZUM 1996, 831 - 832.

Review of: Brack, H./ H. Hübner / Dietrich Öhler / K. Stern (Hg.): Wesen und Bekämpfung der Produktpiraterie. (Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Rundfunkrecht an der Universität zu Köln; 59), Beck, München 1993, 75 S., UFITA 127 (1995), 285 - 287.

Review of: Hiestand, Thomas: Der Wahrnehmungsvertrag. Verlag Stämpfli, Bern 1994, 266 S., GRUR Int 44, 6 (1995), 527 - 528.

Review of: Diem, Markus: Die Beschäftigungssituation der Neuabsolventinnen und Neuabsolventen der Schweizer Hochschulen 1993. Verl. Bundesamt für Bildung und Wissenschaft 1994, 132 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1995, 174 - 177.

Review of: Centre Patronal (Hg.): Handbuch des Arbeitgebers, Loseblattsammlung, since 1971, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1994, 153 - 155.

Review of: Schaltegger, Paul: Die Haftung der Presse aus unlauterem Wettbewerb. (Schriftenreihe zum Konsumentenschutzrecht; 41), Schulthess, Zürich 1992, XX + 190 S., ZUM 1994, 786.

Review of: Locher, Felix: Das Internationale Privat- und Zivilpozessrecht der Immaterialgüterrechte aus urheberrechtlicher Sicht (nach schweizerischem IPRG, unter Berücksichtigung der Berner Übereinkunft), (Schweizer Studien zum internationalen Recht; 80), Schulthess, Zürich 1993, XXV + 108 S., ZUM 1994, 785 - 786.

Review of: Hefti, Andreas: Der Schutz vor ordentlichen Kündigungen bei gesetzlichen Dauerschuldverhältnissen - insbesondere beim Arbeitsvertrag. Rorschack, Löpfe-Benz 1992, 223 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1993, 151 - 153.

Review of: Hempel, Heinrich: Die Freiheit der Kunst. Eine Darstellung des schweizerischen, deutschen und amerikanischen Rechts. (Zürcher Studien zum öffentlichen Recht; 101), Schulthess, Zürich 1991, XLV + 453 S., ZUM 1993, 154.

Review of: Thomann, Felix H.: Grundriss des Softwareschutzes. (Computer und Recht; 24), Schulthess, Zürich 1992, XVI + 88 S., UFITA 123 (1993), 290 - 292.

Review of: Vosseler, Peter: Der Schutz des Tonträgerproduzenten in der Schweiz. Phonosuisse-Verl., Zürich 1992, XXIV + 201 S., UFITA 123 (1993), 289 - 290.

Review of: International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Under the Auspices of the International Association of Legal Science. Vol. 14: Copyright and Industrial Property. Eugen Ulmer, Chief Ed. (Chaps. 2/3: Friedrich-Karl Beier and Gerhard Schricker, Chief Eds.) Tübingen: Mohr; Dordrecht, Bosten, Lancaster: Nijhoff (1983-1990) Chap. 1: Eugen Ulmer: General Questions - The International Conventions, (1987) 40 Seiten Chap. 2: Stig Strömholm: Copyright - Na-tional and International Development / Chap. 3: Stig Strömholm: Copyright - Comparason of Laws, (1990) 102 Seiten Chap. 6: Stojan Pretnar: Inventors' Certificates, Rationalization Proposals and Discoveries, (1983) 63 Seiten, RabelsZ 1992, 369 ff., Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 56, 2 (1992), 369 - 371.

Review of: Pretnar, St.: International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Under the Auspices of the Intnernational Association of Legal Science. Vol. 14: Copyright and Industrial Property. Chap. 6: Inventor's Certificates, Rationalization Proposals and Discoveries. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen etc. 1983, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 1992, 369 - 371.

Review of: Knellwolf, Esther: Postmortaler Persönlichkeitsschutz - Andenkenschutz der Hinterbliebenen. (Zürcher Studien zum Privatrecht; 81), Schulthess, Zürich 1991, XVI + 146 S., ZUM 1992, 386.

Review of: Shieh, Ming-Yan: Kündigung aus wichtigem Grund und Wegfall der Geschäftsgrundlage bei Patentlizenz- und Urheberrechtsverträgen. (Rechtswissenschaftliche Forschung und Entwicklung; 264), VVF, München 1990, XXX + 224 S., UFITA 119 (1992), 307 - 308.

Review of: Schweizerischer Gewerbeverband, (Hg.): Der Einzelarbeitsvertrag im Obligationenrecht. Kommentar zu den Art. 319-346a, 361/362. Cosmos-Verl., Muri-Bern 1991, 587 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1992, 120 - 122.

Review of: Streiff, Ullin / Adrian von Kaenel: Arbeitsvertrag - Leitfaden zum Arbeitsvertragsrecht. Der Arbeitsvertrag OR 319-362 mit Kommentierungen für Lehre und Praxis. 5. Aufl., Verl. Organisator, Zürich 1992, 608 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1992, 122 - 123.

Review of: Budliger, Michael: Die Rechtsfolgen der ungerechtfertigten fristlosen Entlassung durch den Arbeitgeber. ArbR, 1990, 55-77, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1991, 132 - 135.

Review of: Nicolaysen Gerd / Hans-Jürgen Rabe (Hg.): Europäisches Arbeits- und Sozialrecht. (Europarecht Beiheft 1), Nomos, Baden-Baden 1990, 118 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1991, 166.

Review of: Die Revision des Urheberrechtes: Erfahrungen im Ausland. Veröffentlichungen des Schweizerischen Instituts für Rechtsvergleichung, Bd. 16, Zürich 1990, 120 S., ZUM 1990, 608 - 609.

Review of: Aubert, Gabriel, Le licenciement immédiat, Plädoyer, 1989, 58 -59; Berenstein, Alexandre, La loi sur résiliation du contrat de travail, Plädoyer 1989, 52 - 54; Weber, Dennis, Le cumul des périodes de protection de l'art. 336 c CO, Plädoyer 1989, 54 - 58, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1990, 124 - 125.

• Auch veröffentlicht in: ArbR 1990

Review of: Utz, Arthur Fridolin: Arbeitskampf und Wirtschaftsethik. (Social strategies; 3,1), Soziologisches Seminar an der Universität, Basel 1989, 58 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1990, 154 - 155.

Review of: Barde, Michel; Bertholet; Forster; Tschumi: Les conventions collectives, ont-elles encore un avenir?, Redressement national, Zürich 1988, 32 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1989, 163.

Review of: Bureau International du travail (Hg.): La conciliation dans les conflits de travail. Genève 1988, XI + 148 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1989, 167 - 168.

Review of: Bernet, Benno: Die schweizerischen PTT-Betriebe und ihre wettbewerbsrechtliche Stellung als Anbieter, insbesondere im Bereich der Massenkommunikation. (Schweizer Schriften zum Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht; 127), Schulthess, Zürich 1989, XXXVI + 219 S., ZUM 1989, 439.

Review of: Morand, Claire; Rosanne Werlé: Ce qu'il faut savoir sur le certificat de travail. Ed. d'en bas, Lausanne 1987, 90 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1988, 110 - 111.

Review of: Kreile, Reinhold; O.B. Roegele; A. Scharf: Geistiges Eigentum und die audiovisuellen Medien. (Kommunikation audiovisuell; 11), Ölschläger, München 1985, 242 S., UFITA 104 (1987), 323 - 325.

Review of: Kuwahara, Masahiro Ken: Gleichbehandlung der Frauen im Arbeitsrecht. Ein Vergleich des japanischen Gesetzes von 1985 mit den Gesetzen von Kanada und den USA. ArbR, 1986, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1987, 123 - 124.

Review of: Association suisse pour l'organisation scolaire et professionelle, Sécretariat romand: le travaille temporaire, Lausanne et Zurich 1985, 20 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1986, 138 - 139.

Review of: NN: Arbeitnehmer: Vorsicht bei Nettolohnvereinbarungen!, Zeitschrift für die Ausgleichskassen der AHV und ihrer Zweigstellen, 2/1985, S. 83 f., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1986, 148.

Review of: Wyler, Mark: Betriebsrisiko und Arbeitskampf nach schweizerischem Recht. (Sankt Galler Studien zum Privat-, Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht; 7), Haupt, Bern 1985, XXXIX + 206 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1986, 127 - 129.

Review of: Kim, Hyung-Bae: Der Kündigungsschutz im koreanischen Arbeitsrecht. ArbR, 1985, S. 123 - 126, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1986, 132 - 134.

Review of: Schürer, Hans Ueli: Arbeit und Recht. Praktischer Wegweiser für den Berufsalltag. Schweizerischer Kaufmännischer Verband 1984, 181 S., ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1985, 139 - 141.

Review of: Kaempfer, Walter: Die ausserdienstliche Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit und die Vereinsfreiheit des Beamten im politischen Bereich in neuer Sicht. In: Mélanges André Grisel: recueil de travaux offert à André Grisel. Neuchatel, Ed. Ides et Calendes, 1984, S. 481 - 496, ArbR: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Schweizerisches Arbeitsrecht 1985, 146 - 148.

Research Papers

Potential and Limits of Patent Law to Address Climate Change (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 23-10), 2023, 46 pp. (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista).

• The challenges imposed by climate change urgently require new technologies to reduce environmental damage and make more efficient use of natural resources. Patent law is generally considered an important tool to promote innovation. The question therefore arises as to its role with regard to sustainable inventions, in particular whether there is a need for adjustments to increase its efficiency, but also concerning the interaction with other regulatory measures. This article offers a critical overview of the range of options for state intervention and distinguishes different types of market failure that need to be prevented in different ways.
• Available at SSRN

CRISPR/Cas Technology and Innovation: Mapping Patent Law Issues (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 22-06), 2022, 49 pp. (together with Daria Kim et al.).

• The paper provides a systematic overview of issues arising at the interface between CRISPR/Cas technology and patent law. In particular, it examines aspects related to the patentability of CRISPR/Cas-based methods of genome editing, on the one hand, and access to patented technologies, in view of the expanding CRISPR patent landscape, on the other hand. On the whole, our findings show that the case of CRISPR/Cas technology is prototypical of the policy dilemma in patent law as to how to balance economic incentives of multiple innovators in a cumulative innovation setting. The reviewed technical, legal and economic factors suggest the preconditions for technology underutilisation. While this paper presents the results of the exploratory phase of research, it sets a framework for the further, more targeted interdisciplinary examination of the identified issues.
• Available at SSRN

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 Josef Drexl 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.

Traditional Knowledge, Databases and Prior Art – Options for an Effective Defensive Use of TK Against Undue Patent Granting (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-23), 2021, 34 pp. (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista, Suelen Carls).

• The defensive protection of traditional knowledge (TK) is one of the IP law mechanisms envisaged to protect cultural heritage and guarantee the rights of indigenous and local communities. Through it, information on the prior existence of this knowledge is used to prevent the fulfillment of novelty and inventive step as patentability requirements and, therefore, to avoid the patenting of TK-related inventions by third parties. The creation of TK databases that are accessible to foreign patent offices may facilitate the achievement of this goal. However, to be successful, this measure requires TK to be included in the prior art. This chapter aims to establish under which conditions TK can be considered as part of the prior art and thus be effectively used against undue patenting of inventions based on it. Through the analysis of the public accessibility of the knowledge – including in databases – and of the option of extending the prior art to TK that is not publicly accessible, potential gaps in the defensive use of TK are identified and recommendations for the improvement of its effectiveness are made.
• Available at SSRN

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 Josef Drexl 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

Nutzung urheberrechtlich geschützter Inhalte im Internet durch deutsche Verbraucher - Ergebnisübersicht einer repräsentativen quantitativen Erhebung, Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München 2018, 18 pp. (together with Dietmar Harhoff et al.).

• https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/projekte/Nutzerverhalten_Kurzbericht.pdf

Access and Use: Open vs. Proprietary Worlds (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 14-07), 2013, 9 pp. (together with Kaya Köklü).

• There are good reasons to assume that an open world, which allows broad access to existing knowledge, is a better and more social world. But non-open, proprietary systems like patent or copyright laws do also have their legitimacy – particularly with regard to providing incentives for innovation and creation. The paper shows that open and proprietary worlds are not mutually exclusive but rather dependent on each other. Instead of replacing the propriety world by an open world, it is rather crucial to find a balance between both systems. In search for the right balance, it is apparent that the risk of imbalance is rather one-sided. IP rights as a matter of principle are of an exclusive nature. Hence, the risk of over-exclusiveness is more likely than over-openness. The tools to safeguard a certain degree of openness already exist. In this respect often overlooked is the importance and effectiveness of compulsory licenses.
• Available at SSRN

The Reference to the CJEU in Case C-466/12 Svensson (University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper, No. 6/2013 ), 2013, 17 pp. (together with Christophe Geiger et al.).

• In this Opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) puts on record its views on the questions before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-466/12, Svensson, which relate to the hugely important question of liability of those who create hyperlinks to material on the Web without the permission of the copyright holder in that material. The opinion argues that hyperlinking in general should be regarded as an activity that is not covered by the right to communicate the work to the public embodied in Article 3 of Directive 2001/29. The Opinion offers three reasons for this conclusion: firstly, that hyperlinks are not 'communications' because establishing a hyperlink does not amount to 'transmission' of a work, and such transmission is a pre-requisite for 'communication'; secondly because the rights of the copyright owner apply only to communication to the public 'of the work', and whatever a hyperlink provides, it is not 'of a work'; and thirdly because, even were a hyperlink to be regarded as a communication of a work, it is not to a 'new public.' This does not mean that creating hyperlinks in no circumstances involves liability. In fact, as is clear from national case-law, different forms of hyperlinking may indeed give rise to the following forms of liability, such as accessory liability (particularly in respect of knowingly facilitating the making of illegal copies); for unfair competition; and for infringement of moral rights; and possibly for circumvention of technological measures. Only the last of these has been the subject of harmonization at a European level, and thus falls within the competence of the Court of Justice.
• Available at SSRN

Overview of National Reports About 'Balancing Copyright' (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper, No. 12-05 ), 2012, 94 pp. (together with Sylvie Nérisson).

• Available at SSRN

Towards a New Instrument of Protection for Software in the EU? - Learning the Lessons from the Harmonization Failure of Software Patentability (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper, No. 11-01), 2011, 37 pp. (together with Christophe Geiger).

• While the European Parliament overwhelmingly rejected in 2005 the directive proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, the subject remains very controversial, particularly due to the fact that the European Patent Office has maintained its practice of granting patents on software matters. Therefore, a large number of questions are still pending. This article asks in a general manner and without any prepossession to what extent software can be patented in the actual state of the law. Within the scope of a socio-economic analysis, it then deals with the question of whether patent law is really the appropriate judicial instrument or if other tools (existing or to be created) must be taken into consideration.
• Available at SSRN

Open Access - Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Publikationen im schweizerischen Recht, 2009, 107 pp. (together with Matthias Seemann).

• http://www.oai.uzh.ch/images/PDFs/OA_Rechtsgutachten_Hilty.pdf

Beurteilung der Regierungsvorlage zur Änderung des liechtensteinischen Urheberrechtsgesetzes im Lichte der Richtlinie 2001/29/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. Mai 2001 zur Harmonisierung bestimmter Aspekte des Urheberrechts und der verwandten Schutzrechte in der Informationsgesellschaft - Study for the Government of Liechtenstein, 2006 (together with Christophe Geiger).

Opinions

Revisiting the Framework for Compulsory Licensing of Patents in the European Union, 2023, 27 pp. (together with Matthias Lamping et al.).

• Within the scope of its initiative on “Compulsory Licensing in the EU”, the European Commission launched a call for evidence on 1 April 2022 and a public consultation on 7 July 2022 with the aim of gathering views from stakeholders. The objective of this initiative is to explore the possibility of revising the framework for compulsory licensing in the EU to make it more “adequately prepared and coordinated to tackle future crises”. The authors of this position paper welcome the Commission’s attempt to reinvigorate the public discourse on this important subject. This paper addresses selected aspects by way of a preliminary, non-exhaustive note on: the proposed reform’s scope and the grounds for a compulsory licence; the requirements of prior negotiation and licensing failure; government use; procedural matters; compulsory licences for patent applications and products; the relation with other regulations and sui generis regimes (i.e. trade secret protection, regulatory data protection, and supplementary protection certificates); the concept of adequate remuneration; compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect; and the exhaustion of products placed on the market under a compulsory licence.
• Opinion published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-07

Position Statement of 5 July 2022 on the Decision of the WTO Ministerial Conference on the TRIPS Agreement adopted on 17 June 2022, 2022, 8 pp. (together with Daria Kim et al.).

• On 17 June 2022, after nearly one and a half years of intense debate concerning the proposal to waive IP protection in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization adopted a decision on the TRIPS Agreement. It has not waived any intellectual property rights as such but instead mainly clarified the application of the existing TRIPS flexibilities, in particular, regarding compulsory licensing of patents. The Position Statement shows that the Ministerial Decision makes no substantive difference in the existing international legal framework, except for lifting the limitation on the exportation of vaccines manufactured in accordance with the Decision. To the extent that the Decision can make the application of TRIPS flexibilities more expedient, it is to be welcomed. At the same time, it is argued that such facilitating effect should not be limited to, or justified by, the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. More critically, it should not be restricted to COVID-19 vaccines, of which there is currently no shortage – rather, the same level of TRIPS flexibilities should apply to all medicinal products needed to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 2022-07-05__2._Position_Statement_Covid_IP_Waiver.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 22-14

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 Josef Drexl et al.).

• MPI_Position_statement_AI_Inventor_2021-08-09.pdf

Covid-19 and the Role of Intellectual Property - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021, 2021, 11 pp. (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista et al.).

• In this Statement, the authors take a position on the waiver of intellectual property (IP) protection currently being considered by the members of the World Trade Organisation. The waiver was initiated by India and South Africa as a measure to enable rapid access to affordable medical products that are necessary to combat Covid-19. The initiative gained momentum after the US decided to support it. The authors do not consider this path to be expedient. The Statement presents factual and legal arguments why a comprehensive waiver of IP protection is unlikely to be a necessary and suitable measure towards the pursued objective. Overall, it argues that IP rights may so far have played an enabling and facilitating rather than hindering role in overcoming Covid-19. The global community might not be better off if IP rights are waived, neither during nor after the pandemic. There are more efficient and direct ways to supply developing countries with vaccines quickly – if the industrialised countries are willing to do their share.
• 2021_05_25_Position_statement_Covid_IP_waiver.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-13

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 Josef Drexl 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

Gesetz über die urheberrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit von Diensteanbietern für das Teilen von Online-Inhalten (Urheberrechts-Diensteanbieter-Gesetz – UrhDaG) - Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf vom 2. September 2020, 2020, 20 pp. (together with Ansgar Kaiser et al.).

• Stellungnahme_UrhDaG_Referententwurf_MPI - 16.11.2020.pdf

Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts, 2020, 16 pp. (together with Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).

• Das Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb nimmt hiermit zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Vereinfachung und Modernisierung des Patentrechts Stellung, der vom Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz im Januar 2020 vorgelegt wurde. Das Institut begrüßt die Initiative des Ministeriums, empfiehlt im Hinblick auf die Beschränkung des patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruchs und die Stärkung des Schutzes von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen jedoch gewisse Präzisierungen.
  Mit Blick auf die Beschränkung des Unterlassungsanspruchs nach Maßgabe des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit wird vorgeschlagen, die Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung nicht auf einen Anwendungsfall der Gebote von Treu und Glauben zu reduzieren, sondern im Sinne der ratio legis des Patentrechts zu verstehen; insoweit als Maßnahme zur Verhinderung dysfunktionaler Effekte des Ausschließlichkeitsrecht bzw. des damit verbundenen Unterlassungsanspruchs. Zur Veranschaulichung des Ansatzes wird auf die Fallgruppen der komplexen Produkte, der Patentverwerter und der standardessenziellen Patente Bezug genommen, ohne sie jedoch im Detail durchzuprüfen. Mit Blick auf die im Rahmen der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung vorzunehmende Interessenabwägung wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Interessen des Patentinhabers gegenüber jenen des Verletzers keinen grundsätzlichen Vorrang genießen. Darüber hinaus sind bei der Abwägung nicht nur die Interessen der Streitparteien, sondern auch jene Dritter, insbesondere das öffentliche Interesse, zu berücksichtigen.
  Mit Blick auf den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen in Patentstreitsachen verweist die Stellungnahme auf Unzulänglichkeiten des Verfahrens in Geschäftsgeheimnisstreitsachen, die durch die angedachte Anwendung der entsprechenden Vorschriften auf das Patentstreitverfahren übertragen werden. Hingewiesen wird auch auf eine mögliche Regelungslücke in Bezug auf das "Düsseldorfer Verfahren", die von Patentinhabern für sog. "fishing expeditions" ausgenutzt werden könnte.
  
• This position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides comments on the amendments proposed by the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in its discussion draft of January 2020 on the modernization and simplification of the German Patent Act. While the Institute generally welcomes the initiative, the paper offers some suggestions aimed at increasing precision in the areas of first, the concept and the implementation of the proportionality test for granting injunctive relief, and, second, the need for enhanced protection of trade secrets in patent disputes.
  
  With regard to the proportionality assessment, the Institute suggests that, rather than reducing it to an application of the principle of good faith, the concept of proportionality should be interpreted and applied in light of the ratio legis of patent protection with a view to preventing dysfunctional effects potentially resulting from the exercise of the exclusive right and the associated claim to an injunction. Scenarios involving complex products, non-practicing entities and standard-essential patents are used to illustrate the approach. As regards the weighing and balancing of interests when assessing proportionality, the position paper argues that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to prioritize the interests of the patentee over those of the infringer as a matter of principle. In addition, it is not only the interests of parties to the dispute, but also those of third parties, in particular the public interest, that should be taken into account.
  
  With regard to the protection of trade secrets in patent disputes, the position paper refers to certain procedural insufficiencies of the Trade Secrets Act to adequately protect the defendant’s secrecy interests. It also points out a potential loophole in relation to the "Düsseldorf proceedings" that may facilitate "fishing expeditions".
• Stellungnahme_2020-03-1final.pdf
• Also published at SSRN as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 16
• English version published under the title: Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 20-05

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 Josef Drexl et al.).

• WIPO AI Draft Issue Paper_Comments_Max Planck.pdf

Stellungnahme zum Regierungsentwurf vom 23. Januar 2019 für ein Thüringer Transparenzgesetz, 2019, 15 pp. (together with Heiko Richter).

• MPI_Stellungnahme_Regierungsentwurf_Thu__ringer_Transparenzgesetz.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

Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/943 zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen vor rechtswidrigem Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung vom 17. April 2018, 2018, 17 pp. (together with Luc Desaunettes et al.).

• Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016 943 (3).pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 10

Article 13 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Answers to Questions Raised by Member States, 2017, 16 pp. (together with Valentina Moscon).

• Answers_Article_13_2017_Hilty_Moscon-rev-18_9.pdf

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules, PART C: Out-of-Commerce Works (Articles 7-9 COM(2016) 593), 2017, 13 pp. (together with Valentina Moscon, Tao Li).

• MPI_Position_Statement_PART_C-2017_03_13_final_d Copy.pdf
• Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 61 - 70, Part C - Out-of Commerce Works (Articles 7-9 COM(2016) 593 final)

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules, PART B: Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 3 - Preservation of Cultural Heritage (Article 5 COM(2016) 593), 2017, 7 pp. (together with Valentina Moscon, Tao Li).

• MPI_Position_Statement_PART_B_Chapter_3_2017_03-03_final Copy.pdf
• Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 45 - 50 under the title: Part B – Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 3: Preservation of Cultural Heritage (Articles 5 COM(2016) 593 final)

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 Josef Drexl 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 on the Proposed Modernisation of the European Copyright Rules, Part H, Content Circulation in Europe, 2017, 31 pp. (together with Moritz Sutterer).

• MPI-Position-Statement_Part_H_594_Titel_1.pdf
• Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 25 - 34 under the title: Part H - Intra-European Content Circulation (COM(2016) 594 final)

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules, PART B: Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 2: Digital and Cross-Border Teaching Activities (Article 4 COM(2016) 593), 2017, 25 pp. (together with Ricarda Lotte).

• http://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/stellungnahmen/MPI_Position_Statement_Part_B_Chapter_2.pdf
• Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 35 - 44 under the title: Part B – Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 2: Digital and Cross-Border Teaching Activities (Article 4 COM(2016) 593 final)

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Angleichung des Urheberrechts an die aktuellen Erfordernisse der Wissensgesellschaft (Urheberrechts-Wissensgesellschafts-Gesetz–UrhWissG) vom 01. Februar 2017 und dem Verleih von E-Books durch Bibliotheken (sog. „E-Lending“), 2017, 15 pp. (together with Ricarda Lotte).

• Stellungnahme_UrhWissG_und_E-Lending_2017-02-28-korr_def Copy.pdf

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules Part B Exceptions and Limitations (Art. 3 – Text and Data Mining), 2017, 27 pp. (together with Heiko Richter).

• In Article 3 of the “Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market COM(2016) 593 final” the European Commission suggests an exception for text and data mining (TDM). While, in principle, a clear legal framework for TDM is to be welcomed, the proposed provisions are to be criticized regarding their scope and the applied regulatory method. This Position Statement develops an alternative proposal: Since TDM is to be seen as a normal use of works and other protected subject-matter, a field exemption is suggested allowing everyone to carry out TDM related to lawfully accessible works or other subject-matter. This includes the permission to extract contents of databases and to make reproductions for the sole purpose of TDM. Moreover, research organizations also need to carry out TDM regarding content to which they do not have lawful access. The proposal includes a specific provision obliging rightholders who market works or other subject-matter primarily for research purposes to provide datasets suitable for TDM only, for which they may request a reasonable payment.
• MPI_Position_Statement_Part_B_Chapter_1_Update23022017.pdf
• SSRN - Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-02
• Also published in: Hilty, Reto M.; Moscon, Valentina: Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Munich 2017, 25 - 34 under the title: Part B – Copyright Exceptions and Limitations, Chapter 1: Text and Data Mining (Article 3 COM(2016) 593 final)

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 Josef Drexl 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

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition on the "Public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain", 2016, 9 pp. (together with Kaya Köklü, Valentina Moscon).

• MPI_Position_statement_15_6_2016_def.pdf

Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur verbesserten Durchsetzung des Anspruchs der Urheber und ausübenden Künstler auf angemessene Vergütung vom 7. September 2015, 2016, 18 pp. (together with Kaya Köklü et al.).

• Stn-RefE-UR-VR_2016-01-25_def-endg.pdf

Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Anpassung patentrechtlicher Vorschriften auf Grund der europäischen Patentreform, 2016, 15 pp. (together with Roberto Romandini, Matthias Lamping).

• Also published in: GRUR Int 65,6 (2016), 554-560
• StnRefE_Gesetz_Anpassung_patentrecht_Vorschriften_aufgrund_europaeische_Patentreform Copy.pdf
• http://bit.ly/2lSFLZC

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 Kaya Köklü 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

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 12. Mai 2014 zum Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Richtlinie über den Schutz vertraulichen Know-hows und vertraulicher Geschäftsinformationen (Geschäftsgeheimnisse) vor rechtswidrigem Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung vom 28.11.2013, COM (2013) 813 final, 2014, 18 pp. (together with Roland Knaak, Annette Kur). DOI

• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-11
• Auch veröffentlicht in GRUR Int 63,6 (2014), S. 554 - 560
• Englische Fassung unter dem Titel: Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 3 June 2014 on the Proposal of the European Commission for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure of 28 November 2013, COM(2013) 813 Final in IIC 45,8 (2014), 953 - 967
• The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition is a research institute within the Max Planck Society. Its main purpose is to undertake basic research on legal and economic issues on intellectual property and competition law. One main focus of its activity is the study of European intellectual property and unfair competition law. The Institute regularly advises governmental bodies and parliaments, at both the national and the international level. The Institute hereby provides its comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of 28.11.2013, (COM) 813 final. All references in these Comments to the compromise proposal of the Council Presidency refer to the proposal of 19 May 2014 (Doc 9870/14).
• Stellungnahme-Geschaeftsgeheimnisse_2014-05-12_fin1.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Comments of the Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Preliminary Set of Provisions for the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, 2013, 10 pp. (together with Thomas Jaeger et al.).

• This text is a re-formatted version of comments submitted by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the public consultation on the 15th draft for Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court conducted between June and October 2013. The comments focus on those Rules and do, in particular, not duplicate criticism for the Unitary Patent Package voiced elsewhere. Three fundamental aspects of particular importance for the functionality of the procedural regime are identified: Warranting uniformity, safeguarding autonomy and establishing an adequate balance of rights and obligations between the parties.
  
  The comments underline that, within the strict bounds imposed by the Unitary Patent Package, the Rules offer a well elaborated and substantially comprehensive framework for patent litigation procedures. Nonetheless, certain parts fall short of answering to the requirements imposed by the complexities of the system in which they are embedded. In particular, the Rules should not shy away from suggesting solutions in politically delicate areas if essential for the overall balance and functioning of the system. This concerns, for example, the exercise of discretion regarding the choice of options pursuant to Art. 33(3) UPC or the balancing of interests in the context of granting injunctive relief.
• Also published as: Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper Series No. 13-16

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht zur Anfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom 20. Februar 2013 - Zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung einer Regelung zur Nutzung verwaister Werke und weiterer Änderungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sowie des Urheberrechtswahrnehmungsgesetz, 2013, 27 pp. (together with Kaya Köklü et al.).

• Stellungnahme-BMJ-UrhG_2013-3-15-def1.pdf

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 Josef Drexl 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

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, München, vom 29.4.2013 - Zum Grünbuch der Europäischen Kommission über unlautere Handelspraktiken in der B2B-Lieferkette für Lebensmittel und Nicht-Lebensmittel in Europa vom 31.1.2013, COM(2013) 37 final, 2013, 13 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig, Rupprecht Podszun). DOI

• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC, 44,6 (2013), 701 - 709
• The economic situation in the retail chain is increasingly characterised by cross-border transactions of undertakings with market power. As the European Commission rightly points out in its Green Paper this may lead to unbalanced bargaining power and unfair market practices. The Green Paper considers the different approaches of national law to combat such unfair B2B practices in the supply chain as promoting the development of trade barriers and suggests specific regulation. The Comments of the Max Planck Institute point out that such specific legislation may lead to a further fragmentation and incoherency of the European aquis and may cause rifts within existing and proposed regulations in the field of antitrust law, unfair competition law and contract law.
• MPI_Stellungnahme_Gruenbuch_B2B_2013-04-30.pdf

The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern, 2012, 5 pp. (together with Thomas Jaeger et al.).

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-12
• Auch veröffentlicht in: CIPA Journal, 2012, H. 10, 553 - 555
• A balanced, innovation-friendly and uniform patent system is indispensable for Europe. However, the latest EU proposal for a patent package (Patent Regulation and flanking court system) is both dangerous and misguided. While a superficial glance may create the false impression of a patent law advancement through the proposal, it instead actually threatens to forestall the necessary legal progress and innovation capacities for the foreseeable future. It might prove disastrous to implement a patent system which is already known to be detrimental from both the legal as well as the innovation perspectives. This paper provides a short introduction to the major reasons for concern regarding the current proposals and explains why it is imperative to reconsider the proposals entirely afresh.
• MPI-IP_Twelve-Reasons_2012-10-17.pdf
• SSRN-Paper
• Institutswebsite

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht zur Anfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom 6. Juli 2011 - Zum Richtlinienvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission über bestimmte zulässige Formen der Nutzung verwaister Werke, KOM(2011)289, 2011, 12 pp. (together with Kaya Köklü et al.).

• English version in: GRUR Int 60,10 (2011), 818 - 821 published under the title Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Commission Proposal for a Directive on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper No. 11-14
• The Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law comments on the Commission's proposal for a new directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works - COM(2011)289. In principle,the Institute welcomes the proposal of the Commission, which, after years of discussion, is now attempting to create a legal framework allowing libraries in particular both to digitise their archives and to make such archives available in an online library or archive. Instead of addressing the digitisation of public collections or collections as such, the Commission limits itself to orphan works. From the Institute's point of view, this approach raises several - to some extent fundamental - concerns.
• Stellungnahme-RichtlinienvorschlagVerwaisteWerke7.pdf
• Available at SSRN

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

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zur Anfrage des Bundesministeriums der Justiz vom 19. Februar 2009: Urheberrecht „Dritter Korb“, 2009, 54 pp. (together with Nadine Klass).

• Stellungnahme-UrheberrechtDritterKorb6.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 Sebastian Krujatz 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 Annette Kur 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

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zum Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über strafrechtliche Maßnahmen zur Durchsetzung des Rechts des geistigen Eigentums, KOM(2006) 168 endgültig, 2006, 7 pp. (together with Annette Kur, Alexander Peukert).

• Auch veröffentlicht in: GRUR Int 55, 8/9 (2006), 722 - 725
• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 37,8 (2006), 970 - 977 unter dem Titel: Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of the Intellectual Property Rights
• Stellungnahme-StrafrechtDurchsetzungGeistigesEigentum.pdf

Further Publications, Press Articles, Interviews

Patent Rights in Pandemic Times, Highlights from the Yearbook of the Max Planck Society 2021 (2022), 26 - 27 (together with Suelen Carls, Daria Kim).

• https://www.mpg.de/18802436/jahrbuch-highlights-2021.pdf

A Proposal for an International Agreement: The International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law, Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021 (together with Valentina Moscon).

• http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/03/19/a-proposal-for-an-international-agreement-the-international-instrument-on-permitted-uses-in-copyright-law/

International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law – An Interview, Copyright 21 (2021) (together with Valentina Moscon).

• http://copy21.com/2021/03/international-instrument-on-permitted-uses-in-copyright-law-an-interview-with-reto-hilty-and-valentina-moscon/

Interfering with Patent Protection Means Playing with Fire - Interview, Newsroom / Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2021.

• https://www.mpg.de/16579491/patent-protection-vaccines-covid-10-reto-hilty

Wer am Patentschutz rüttelt, spielt mit dem Feuer - Interview, Newsroom / Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2021.

• https://www.mpg.de/16557172/patentschutz-corona-impfung?c=2191

Interview: Fünf Fragen zum Patentschutz für Impfstoffe, MaxPlanckForschung 01 (2021), 82.

Modernizing German Patent Law: Toward an Explicit Obligation for Proportionality Control of Injunctions?, Oxford Business Law Blog 2020 12.06.2020 (together with Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al.).

Europe Might Miss Chance For Real Copyright Law - Interview, Intellectual Property Watch 16.03.2019.

Eine neue Kultur - Interview, Süddeutsche Zeitung 16.03.2019.

Vom Drang, Freiheit zu regulieren, MaxPlanckForschung 3/19 (2019), 10 (together with Heiko Richter).

• https://www.mpg.de/13879457/W001_Zur-Sache_010-015.pdf

The Use of Copyright Protected Creative Online Content by German Consumers, Medien und Recht International 15, 2 (2018), 51 (together with Roland Stuerz et al.).

• The question of how copyright-protected content is used on the Internet and, particularly, which conclusions should be drawn from users’ behaviour has been the subject of intense debate for years. To what extent do Internet users download, stream or share content like music, films, series or Video games? What is the share of paid compared to free use? Do users consider their own conduct to be legal, and what are their motives for choosing potentially illegal forms of use?
  The research project carried out by the economic
  and legal departments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition examines these issues gathering data with a large-scale, representative quantitative Survey of German consumers and analysing it.

Urheberrecht und Innovation in digitalen Märkten - Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München 2016, IV + 227 pp. (together with Dietmar Harhoff et al.).

• http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Service/StudienUntersuchungenFachbuecher/Studie_Urheberrecht_digitales_Zeitalter_2.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4

Wer etwas ändern will, hat es immer schwerer - Interview, Plädoyer - das Magazin für Recht und Politik 4 (2014), 6 - 10.

Interview: Kritik am jüngsten Gesetzesentwurf der Bundesregierung zum Urheberrecht – "Erforderlich wären ganz andere Maßnahmen", Promedia: das medienpolitische Magazin 5 (2013), 16 - 18.

Urheberrecht im "digitalen Dilemma", MaxPlanckForschung 2 (2003), 48 - 53.