Research News

In June 2024, all employees of the Max Planck Society and the Fraunhofer Society were invited to take part in an anonymous survey on their use of AI tools for their work. As researchers and support staff have substantially different task profiles and opportunities to use AI, they are considered separately. The current analysis focuses on the 6,215 complete responses from researchers, which are broadly representative of the two research organizations. The survey addressed AI tools in general rather than generative AI specifically, though the latter may have featured prominently in respondents’ considerations due to their visibility in public discourse.

The key insights into researchers’ use of AI have now been published in Research Policy, an internationally leading peer-reviewed journal focusing on research, technology, and innovation policy and their implications for science, the economy, and society.

Researchers actively use AI tools, with adaoption patterns varying with roles and beliefs.

Many researchers in the sample are already using AI tools: 42.4% say they are very or fairly familiar with these tools, while 44.0% say they have used them a few times or more. Nearly a quarter (25.9%) of all researchers use AI tools daily or more frequently. Only about one in five researchers (22.2%) never use AI for work.

Clear patterns emerge regarding who is more familiar with AI (Figure 1). Younger researchers tend to use AI more often than older ones. Those with higher education levels are also more familiar with AI tools. Women report lower familiarity with AI tools than men. 

Respondents who use AI tools tend to be more positive about their potential impact on research quality, skill development, and society in general. While an overwhelming majority of researchers (69.2%) expect AI to transform, or even revolutionize, their field in the next decade, they are more divided in their opinions about the effect of AI tools on society: 40.6% believe AI tools offer more opportunities than risks, while 22.2% think they pose more risks than opportunities.

A gender gap in AI use appears – as also documented in other studies – and is largely explained by differences in familiarity with AI tools.

Other studies have documented that women tend to use AI less than men do. We also document this tendency among scientists for research tasks. Our fine-grained data establish that the gender gap in AI usage for research is not due to ability or negative beliefs about AI, but rather due to familiarity with AI tools. Once women start using AI tools, they find them to be just as helpful as men do.

AI is becoming a co-creator, supporting not only peripheral but core research tasks.

Researchers now use AI at every stage of the research process (Figure 2). The most common applications include testing ideas, writing code, and drafting research papers. Interestingly, researchers use AI tools more for the tasks on which they spend the most time.

Efficiency is a major driver for use, yet many struggle with effective prompting.

Half of the researchers (50.4%) reported using AI to speed up their work. However, our survey suggests that effectively using AI tools requires skill. To proxy prompting ability, we showed respondents a picture of a visual phenomenon and asked them to create a prompt to identify the phenomenon from a Large Language Model (LLM). We considered a prompt successful if, after ten iterations with an LLM, at least one returned the correct answer or suggested uploading the picture to an LLM. Despite their advanced educational background and awareness of AI tools, only a fifth of researchers (21.0% ) managed to create a successful prompt for the test task. Learning to write prompts seems to be a new skill in itself. Those who have received training on how to write prompts and use AI are much more likely to produce good prompts. 

Institutions can accelerate adoption by addressing key barriers: legal uncertainty, lack of knowledge, and limited access to suitable tools.

Many of the obstacles to more frequent AI use could be mitigated through institutional action (Figure 3). The most frequently mentioned barriers are legal uncertainties (17.6%), lack of knowledge (17.4%), and limited availability of suitable tools (16.6%). Legal uncertainties are especially important for researchers who handle a lot of administrative work, such as personnel and project management.

Researchers also want clearer guidelines. Most respondents prefer high-level guidance to address legal uncertainties. 58.7% expect guidance from supranational bodies, such as the EU, and 51.3% expect guidance from their own research organizations (the Max Planck Society or the Fraunhofer Society).

Conclusion

The rapid development of AI has led to the quick adoption of new tools by the research community, making AI an important subject of research as well as a tool for advancing research. Researchers are increasingly integrating AI into their core activities. While opinions are divided about the long-term impact of AI on breakthrough innovation, skill development, and research equity, there is a general consensus that this technology will transform research practice profoundly. As AI becomes an increasingly important research tool, it is essential to understand who uses it, for which tasks, and what challenges they face. This knowledge is crucial for designing future policies, supporting researchers in adopting the technology effectively and responsibly, and safeguarding scholarly standards.

To the study:

Chugunova, Marina; Harhoff, Dietmar; Hölzle, Katharina; Kaschub, Verena; Malagimani, Sonal; Morgalla, Ulrike; Rose, Robert (2026). Who Uses AI in Research, and for What? Large-Scale Survey Evidence from Germany, Research Policy, 55 (2), 105381. DOI

Brazil Between the Amazon and the Metropolis

Brazil is a key climate region in many respects: the Amazon binds enormous amounts of CO₂, while urban centers such as São Paulo release huge amounts of greenhouse gases. The report shows that both realities are closely linked – through supply chains, consumption patterns, and energy supply. Access to data also has a global impact on international product exports and market entry. For example, coffee farmers from Brazil could enter the EU market if they can prove the origin and sustainability of their products. Access to climate data and the use of product traceability technologies could help them meet international standards. The challenge is to bring together the different interests of industry, politics, and civil society to enable progress.

From Workshop to Method

In December 2022, the Institute brought together stakeholders from industry, technology, government, and NGOs at the Data Sharing & Climate Action in Brazil workshop in São Paulo. The goal was to identify specific situations in which data sharing can advance climate protection and thereby support UN Climate Goal No 13. Initiatives and business models that already have experience using data, AI, and digital technologies were presented.

After the workshop, the research team conducted a legal and political analysis and reached a clear conclusion: Sharing data is not enough; strong governance of climate data is needed. Without it, problems such as misinterpretation, misuse, and conflicts over data ownership and control can arise, which could compromise efforts to combat climate change.

The report presents a method for identifying climate-related contexts and determining what type of data governance is appropriate to better leverage the potential of data for climate protection.
 

Legal Framework: Many Rules, Little Connection

The current legal framework does not link environmental and climate policy with data regulation. In particular, Brazil currently lacks a legal definition of climate data that would help balance competing interests when data sharing for climate action conflicts with other values such as freedom of economic activity or the protection of personal data. Establishing such a definition is a fundamental step toward coherent climate data governance.

With regard to parties interested in climate data, the report emphasizes that data governance for climate protection measures can be strengthened or restricted depending on the balance of other interests.

Without data governance, many technical possibilities remain untapped. However, a lack of legal coherence blocks its full potential.

Examples of Data in Application

The report identifies four climate areas in which access to and exchange of data are crucial. It examines the respective legal implications and discusses which elements of data governance could provide a solution.
 

• Sustainable land use: Precision agriculture companies offer data solutions that enable farmers to monitor and predict the environmental impact of their farming, including carbon footprint, energy consumption, waste, and water consumption.
• Traceability: Blockchain and AI are essential for tracking products throughout the supply chain. They enable the collection of real-time data on production processes, transport, and distribution, and guarantee the authenticity and integrity of this data.
• Combating illegal activities: Satellite data enables the government to better track where illegal deforestation, mining, and land grabbing are taking place.
• Smart Cities: Data from smart meters could help the government in São Paulo and researchers obtain information about users’ energy consumption and better plan the energy transition.

Prospects for the Future

To harness the potential of data to combat climate change in Brazil, the authors suggest carefully weighing up the various interests involved and promoting partnerships and data platforms for climate data. On these platforms, all stakeholders can share data under fair conditions and benefit from this. If data is available under the right conditions and with clear rules, this can lead to more initiatives for adaptation and mitigation measures. From a legal perspective, the Brazilian legal framework could benefit from a clear definition of climate data. This would provide a basis and an incentive to share data with legal certainty.

Vicente Bagnoli, Carolina Weber (née Banda), Germán Oscar Johannsen, Christiane Bedini Santorsula, Maria Beatriz Monteiro, Juliana Abrusio
Data Governance in Emerging Economies to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals Brazil Country Report Based on the Workshop ‘Data Governance for Climate Action in Brazil’ (São Paulo, 15-16 December 2022)
Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 25-22

The study examined two everyday scenarios whose legal framework has been reformed in recent years. In both cases, the European legislator aims to strengthen consumer protection while actively promoting innovation and, ultimately, enhancing competition. As business processes become increasingly digital, consumers face new challenges – now addressed through specific legal rights. However, the study shows that these reforms remain widely unknown. As a result, the intended effects of the legislation may fail to materialize.

Bank Account Switching Service

Under the Second Payment Services Directive (PSD2), implemented in German law in 2018, banks are required to make account data accessible via interfaces to other payment and information service providers. This is intended, for example, to facilitate switching bank accounts. Overall, the goal is to foster innovation in the financial sector and strengthen competition.

The survey asked: “Suppose you want to switch your bank account: Does your current bank have to share your account data with the new bank upon request?” The correct answer is “Yes”.

However, around 50% of respondents answered incorrectly. The analysis shows that certain population groups are systematically better informed. These include people interested in new trends, higher-income individuals, rural residents, and men. Marital status, migration background, age, and education level were also examined, but these four factors did not significantly influence responses.

Lack of knowledge harms both competition and innovation. For example, account holders might perceive switching costs as too high and therefore refrain from changing banks or using new services. Innovative new companies, anticipating this low willingness to switch, may stay out of the market. In this way, lack of awareness perpetuates barriers to market entry.

Security Updates for Laptops

Under the Digital Content Directive, implemented in German law in 2022, sellers of electronic devices, including laptops, are required to provide security updates. Otherwise, the device is considered defective, and buyers can assert statutory warranty claims.

The survey question was: “Suppose you bought a new laptop last year: Is the seller required to provide you with current security updates?” The correct answer is “Yes”.

Around 73% of respondents answered incorrectly. Again, certain groups are systematically better informed. These include people interested in new trends, individuals under 40, Germans with a migration background, foreign nationals, men, and parents of children. Household income, place of residence, and education level were also examined but did not significantly affect responses.

The risk is that consumers may fail to assert their rights, potentially incurring higher costs or using defective devices. Lack of awareness therefore negatively affects overall economic welfare, as the right to security updates correlates with increased demand and stronger incentives for innovation.

Need for Action

Although it is already known that consumers are often unaware of their rights, this study confirms the urgent need for action in these cases. To achieve positive effects, the authors recommend complementing existing collective enforcement mechanisms with targeted information campaigns that inform citizens of their rights. The study also suggests that technology itself could contribute to raising awareness, which is the subject of further research at the Institute.

Authors of the study:
Michael E. Rose, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow
Jörg Hoffmann, Senior Research Fellow
Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D., Director at the Institute

To the publication:

Rose, Michael E., Hoffmann, Jörg, Harhoff, Dietmar (2025). Digital Consumer Law, Competition and the (Un-)Informed Consumer: Evidence from a Survey among German Consumers, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 14 (4), 170–177.

The most impressive achievements being made in AI innovation today are the result of massive resources. Large technology companies, known as big tech, have spent several years securing significant advantages in terms of data availability, computing power and cloud infrastructure. At the same time, AI start-ups are striving to implement innovative concepts and approaches and develop groundbreaking AI models. The pattern of dependency is recognizable – can the pitfalls in this practice be avoided?

The Control Issue

Even when competition authorities gain access to AI agreements, their terms remain largely unknown to the general public. What is widely known is that big tech companies often provide critical resources such as computing power, cloud infrastructure, data or financial resources. There is a risk that, in return, they will impose conditions that restrict both the free choice of licensing and, more generally, the innovation models of AI developers. Of particular importance is how the AI models resulting from these strategic partnerships are distributed and made accessible to both subsequent innovators and the general public.

Open-source licensing of AI models has been the subject of heated debate for some time. Some see it as an ideal means of promoting innovation and competition. Others have criticized it as a diversionary tactic by companies to strengthen their own position within the AI ecosystem. However, “openness” of model licenses cannot automatically and universally be equated with more innovation. On the one hand, openness can vary depending on the degree and type of AI components made accessible. On the other hand, the openness of AI models can have different, partly contradictory implications for innovation and therefore does not allow for an unambiguous normative evaluation; in some cases, control over certain resources may be justified as a legitimate competitive advantage.

Innovation Competition as a Discovery Process

Traditional competition law approaches reach their limits here. On the one hand, it is often unclear which theory of harm—if any—can be applied to capture competition concerns; on the other hand, it is often uncertain what impact certain competition strategies actually have on competition and innovation in this dynamic environment. The goal is not only to protect competition against restrains, including through the use of AI, but also to create conditions under which companies can freely and creatively pursue new avenues of AI innovation.

Recent cases, such as the partnerships between Microsoft and OpenAI and between Microsoft and Mistral AI, show that traditional competition law instruments are not sufficient to address the specific risks of these digital alliances. What is needed, therefore, is a distinct analytical approach that addresses specific concerns about dependencies between big tech and AI developers, particularly in the context of innovation competition. A promising framework is to base the competition law analysis on the concept of innovation competition as a discovery procedure. The key is to preserve the freedom of AI developers to choose their own licensing models and pursue independent innovation strategies without undue restrictions imposed under cooperation agreements.

In addition to applying innovation competition as a discovery procedure as the guiding concept for competition law enforcement, it is also worth considering a reform of the Digital Markets Act or even the introduction of a new competition law instrument to promote freedom of choice and access in digital markets in this context.

Access the paper on SSRN:
Josef Drexl, Daria Kim
AI Innovation Competition as a Discovery Procedure: The Role and Limits of Competition Law

Who determines the rules on the internet? Will algorithms soon steer the debate? And what role does Big Tech play, those companies that invisibly engineer our digital spaces?

What the humanet3 Research Group Is Investigating

To get to the bottom of these questions, three Max Planck Institutes have joined forces and launched the humanet3 Research Group. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, the Max Planck Institute for Human Development und des Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law — more specifically, a group consisting of legal experts and experts in computer-assisted social sciences—are pursuing an ambitious goal: to analyze, deconstruct, and rethink the “human-centered digital transformation” of digital public spaces. In the newly published  Research Agenda of humanet3, the group describes the approaches and methods of its work.

Specific projects will shed light on how technology, law, and society influence each other:
 

• Humans at the center of AI: What does it mean when we talk about “human-centered AI”? How can this ideal be implemented technically and legally?
• Humans in global law: How is “the human” constructed in global law, and what consequences does this have for our actions on the internet?
• Regulation by the EU: To what extent does European regulation restrict our behavior on social media platforms? What power do these platforms themselves possess to influence our behavior?
• Power for civil society: Could a new type of regulation that strengthens not only the state but also groups within civil society help us reclaim power from Big Tech?

It Is in Everyone's Hands To Shape the Digital Future

The work of humanet3 aims to show that shaping the digital future cannot be left solely to tech companies or regulatory authorities. It is a task for society as a whole. The aim is to preserve the internet as a place of free expression while creating mechanisms to protect it from the challenges of AI and the concentration of power.

The central question that ultimately stands above all else is: How can we ensure that the internet remains a place where people are at the center and do not end up as mere data sources or algorithm fodder? The research conducted by humanet3 provides important impetus for this debate. It reminds us that we must be the creative forces of the digital future and not mere passengers on the journey.

Rethinking Digital Public Spaces for Democracy

Statement by Josef Drexl (YouTube video)

Statement by Gérman Oscar Johannsen (YouTube video)

The Research Agenda on SSRN:
Erik Tuchtfeld, Germán Oscar Johannsen, Anna Sophia Tiedeke, Chaewon Yun
humanet3: The Third Attempt at a Human-Centered Internet – A Research Agenda
Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 25-21

Research in Ukraine is facing one of the greatest challenges in its history. Since 2014, and especially since the start of Russia’s aggressive war in February 2022, research institutions have been destroyed, researchers have been forced to flee their homes, and research projects have been interrupted. The new study provides comprehensive documentation of this crisis.

The UNESCO Report, which was presented at the Ukraine Recovery Conference 2025 in Rome, is based on an analysis of open data, statistics, scientific publications, and legislation, as well as the results of a series of group discussions with Ukrainian researchers conducted between December 2023 and January 2024.

The report reveals alarming yet unsurprising figures: 54.3% of researchers are no longer able to carry out their work at the same level as before, 29.4% of research facilities have suffered physical damage, and over 80% of respondents stated that their economic situation has deteriorated. Between 10 and 20% of researchers have left their home country.

The lead author Anastasiia Lutsenko is a doctoral candidate at the Institute and focuses her research on innovation systems, regional resilience, and the role of research in crisis regions. She contributed significantly to the preparation of the report, particularly in the areas of data analysis, political framework conditions, and the realities of life for researchers in times of war.

“The study shows that the crisis of Ukrainian science is not just a question of buildings and equipment – it is above all a question of people,” says Lutsenko. “Researchers are suffering from fear, uncertainty, loss of research content, and the destruction of their careers. At the same time, they are demonstrating incredible resilience. It is our duty to offer them not only moral support, but also practical assistance – through research, networking, and political pressure.”

Key Findings of the Report

• Structural deficiencies existed even before the war: Ukrainian science had been suffering for decades from insufficient funding (2022: only 0.33% of GDP), low wages, and a brain drain.
• Gender-specific burdens: Women with children are particularly affected – they are disproportionately likely to flee abroad with their children and lose their jobs. Men of working age are restricted by martial law.
• Research interruptions: Many researchers have lost their dissertations, libraries, or research data – often in a single day.
• Funding abroad: Most international funding goes to research abroad – not to Ukraine.

The report proposes specific measures: amongst other things, Ukraine should increase public funding for research, European Institutions could offer Ukrainian scientists to conduct research remotely, and Ukraine should improve opportunities for researchers to reintegrate after extended stays abroad.

Support for Ukrainian Researchers at the Institute

Since the start of Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine, the Institute has supported eleven Ukrainian researchers by awarding them scholarships or offering them employment. In addition, employees of the Institute are involved in the #ScienceForUkraine initiative, which aims to bring Ukrainian researchers and suitable funding together.

To the report:

UNESCO (2025). Resilient Minds: The Unseen Struggles of Scientists in Wartime Ukraine.
https://doi.org/10.54678/ICVP5702

The results of the survey conducted in October 2024 show that only 35% of the adult German-speaking population have activated the eID function, 6% are not even aware of it. The highest activation rate is found in Berlin with 54%, followed by Hamburg with 40%.

The electronic ID function (eID) was introduced to provide German citizens with a secure digital identity. All ID cards issued since 2010 and all electronic residence permits issued since 2011 have been eID-capable. However, the function must be activated at great time and effort. This requires a visit to the citizens’ office, although in other EU member states the eID of the ID card is either automatically active (for example in Estonia and Belgium) or directly linked to a bank account (for example in Sweden and Finland).

It is already known that Germans have hardly used the eID to date. However, this is not only due to technical and institutional hurdles, but also to a lack of use cases and occasions.

The current study now shows which population groups activate the eID – and which do not. The eID is activated significantly more frequently by men, younger people, city dwellers, people with a high school diploma, Germans with a migration background, and foreign citizens, among others. Among professionals, those with a legal background or in administrative jobs stand out.

The low overall prevalence of eID is in contrast to the political objectives of the German Federal Government. Electronic identity is a central pillar of the European eIDEAS Regulation (EU No. 910/2014). As the regulation is explicitly aimed at “seamless electronic interaction” with companies, there is a risk of a dilemma of mutual conditionality: companies that represent the majority of eID usage options in other countries have little reason to integrate eID into their services in Germany, as the activation rate is so low.

The authors therefore recommend a targeted approach to population groups with a low activation rate, such as women and older people, as well as greater involvement of the population in the further development of user-friendly digital services. Most important, however, would be the removal of barriers and obstacles to the activation of the eID.

The authors of the study are:

Michael E. Rose, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow
Jörg Hoffmann, Senior Research Fellow
Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D., Director at the Institute

To the publication (in German):

Rose, Michael E., Hoffmann, Jörg, Harhoff, Dietmar (2025). Wer hat die elektronische Ausweisfunktion aktiviert?, Wirtschaftsdienst, 105 (7), 525–528.

https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2025/heft/7/beitrag/wer-hat-die-elektronische-ausweisfunktion-aktiviert.html

The project is grounded in a striking observation: Ukraine was the dominant location of pharmaceutical production in the USSR, accounting for over 70% of the total Soviet pharmaceutical R&D and production capacity. Today, these capabilities remain still “in the ground and air”. Economists refer to this legacy as the country’s “industrial memory”. These unique capabilities hold significant relevance for discussions on industrial policy and highlight Ukraine’s potential to reclaim its position as a major player in the global pharmaceutical industry.

Rebuilding Ukraine’s pharmaceutical sector is a strategic win-win project. An EU-integrated Ukrainian pharma sector could strengthen Continental supply chain resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions exposed Europe’s overreliance on Asian producers for medicine. Having a modern Ukrainian pharmaceutical base next to the EU would diversify supply sources and act as a buffer in times of crisis.

The project proposes developing a comprehensive playbook to support the rebirth of Ukraine’s pharma industry. This playbook will help fill gaps in the EU’s supply networks and create a high-value added component for Ukraine’s economy by contributing to the country’s economic growth and resilience.

Members of the project team working at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition are:

Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D. (Director at the Institute), Prof. Dr. Nataliia Mazaraki (Head of the Academic Department of International, Civil, and Commercial Law at the State University of Trade and Economics, Ukraine) and Prof. Dr. Liudmyla Petrenko (Business Economics and Entrepreneurship Department at Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman) as well as Senior Research Fellows Michael E. Rose, Ph.D., and Dr. Daria Kim.

The local team will collaborate closely with Ukrainian researchers and institutions, which will play a key role in shaping the project’s research agenda and ensuring its relevance to the Ukrainian context:

Oksana Kashyntseva, Ph.D. (Advisor to the Head of the National IP Office of Ukraine), Yevgeniya Piddubna (Director of Corporate Communications at Farmak JSC), Olha Urazovska, Ph.D. (Deputy Head of the Intellectual Property and Innovations Department of the National IP Office of Ukraine), Olha Omelchenko, Ph.D. (Senior Researcher at the Scientific-Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences), Anastasia Homeniuk (Ph.D. Student and Junior Researcher at the Scientific-Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences), Tetiana Pyatchanina, Ph.D. (Head of the Department of Patent and Licensing Activities and Information Support at the R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of National Academy of Sciences), Yaroslav Iolkin, Ph.D. (Senior Researcher at the Scientific-Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences), and Viktoriia Kyrylenko (Ph.D. Student, Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman).

Through this collaboration, we will foster a deeper understanding of the country’s industrial capabilities and identify opportunities for growth and development.

We are grateful for the VolkswagenStiftung’s support, which once again recognizes the value of unorthodox research and its potential to drive positive change. The funding will enable the Institute to pursue the ambitious goals and meaningfully contribute to the revitalization of Ukraine’s pharmaceutical industry.

For more information on the project, please refer to the project poster (PDF).

The Block Exemption Regulation for Technology Transfer (TTBER) states that Article 101(1) TFEU does not apply to certain categories of technology transfer agreements. Since November 2022, the EU Commission has been conducting a review process, which has now entered the impact assessment phase. In its statement, the Institute focuses in particular on the questions raised by the European Commission in its call for contributions of 31 January 2025.

In view of the technological developments since the adoption of the current Block Exemption Regulation, the statement examines, among other things, whether and how the licensing of artificial intelligence (AI) data and models should be covered. With regard to data, it recommends a cautious approach to extending the scope of the TTBER to certain categories of data and data-related rights. While the Institute believes that data licensing in the European Union should be improved to promote innovation and social welfare, particularly in the context of AI development, it also argues that the TTBER is not the appropriate framework for this. Instead, consideration should be given to separate guidelines that go beyond data licensing and promote data sharing through rules on Article 102 TFEU.

With regard to the licensing of AI models, the statement emphasizes that the Commission should clarify the scope of application in the TTBER and in the guidelines, both in relation to the current applicability of the TTBER to certain cases and in relation to the inclusion of AI models.

The statement supports the Commission's view that applying market share thresholds to technology markets raises practical difficulties. Nevertheless, the Institute advises against changing the rules in the TTBER. Instead, the Institute would support a transition from a “4plus” to a “3plus” rule in the TT Guidelines.

The Commission's intention to incorporate case law on pay-for-delay settlements into the TT Guidelines is supported by the statement. Specifically, the opinion recommends the formulation of a specific hardcore restriction that explicitly reflects the conditions for classifying the licensing of rights as part of pay-for-delay settlements as a restriction by object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

The safe harbour criteria for technology pools set out in the TT Guidelines are in principle supported by the statement as being appropriate. Finally, the Institute recommends that the Commission include specific rules in the TT Guidelines — including a safe harbour rule — for the assessment of agreements on licensing negotiation groups (LNGs) concluded between potential licensees under Article 101 TFEU.

Position Statement as PDF:

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 25 April 2025 in the framework of the revision of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and the accompanying Guidelines

The burden caused by bureaucracy has reached a new level. It is now considered by firms and industry associations to be the biggest brake on growth and the most important obstacle to investment, even ahead of high energy costs and the burden of taxes and duties. How can an effective reduction in bureaucracy be achieved in the long term without jeopardizing our constitutional principles? A new concept for shaping state norm-setting and state action is required in order to achieve substantial and sustainable progress.

The Advisory Board specifically recommends the following measures:

1. Weighing benefits against bureaucratic costs: In all proposed legislation, the benefits of new and existing regulations must be weighed against the bureaucratic costs. Instead of trying to achieve fairness in individual cases through byzantine provisions, legislators should focus on generous generalization and de minimis clauses.

2. Review laws and abolish alibi laws: When adopting a regulation with a high bureaucratic burden, it should be clearly defined which objectives are to be achieved with the regulation and how the achievement of objectives can be measured. The law should be evaluated after a specified period and abolished if it fails to achieve its objectives.

3. Avoid micromanagement and introduce ex-post controls: The state should not regulate in detail how a societal goal is to be achieved. It is sufficient to measure the target and provide incentives for achieving it. The state should refrain more frequently from ex-ante monitoring of the norms set and instead carry out random ex-post controls in such a way that norm violations are not profitable in terms of expected value.

4. No gold plating of EU legislation: The German legislator should refrain from supplementing EU requirements with more far-reaching regulations.

5. Results orientation and competition: Not only the input, but primarily the outcome of an authority’s actions should be measured and compared with the results of other institutions.

6. Use of structured management methods and professional development: More modern management methods should be used in the administration. The training of administrative staff should also be less process-oriented and more results-oriented. In addition, the administration should be more open to specialists with extensive professional experience in the economy and other sectors.

7. Further development of practice checks: Practice checks are a promising instrument for results-oriented bureaucracy design that should be further developed. In particular, this procedure should be supplemented by ex-ante practice checks prior to legislation and designed in a cross-ministerial manner.

8. One-Stop-Shops und Regulatory Sandboxes: New forms of cooperative norm-setting should be tested. This includes the establishment of one-stop shops in which legislators and authorities work together in such a way that complex approval processes can be handled entirely by one authority.

The Scientific Advisory Board advises the Federal Minister independently on all economic policy issues. Dietmar Harhoff has been a member of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi), now the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWE), since 2004.

To the publication (in German):

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK); Bierbrauer, Felix; Engel, Christoph; Harhoff, Dietmar; Hellwig, Martin; Janeba, Eckhard; Kübler, Dorothea; Schmidt, Klaus M.; Wambach, Achim (2025). Bürokratieabbau und ergebnisorientiertes Verwaltungshandeln. Gutachten des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz.

https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Ministerium/Veroeffentlichung-Wissenschaftlicher-Beirat/gutachten-buerokratieabbau.pdf