Research News

The question of who “owns” data has reached the political arena. It has been discussed on the European level for some time now, and has in the meantime also been addressed in Germany. The German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, for example, is currently considering a data ownership right in connection with automated and autonomous driving. This issue stands in relation to the question of which potentially new regulations ought to be applied in the data-driven economy – the so-called “Industry 4.0”. That these questions have become an area of concern in politics is appropriate and important; however, short-term specifications are not called for and may even encourage unwanted developments.

The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition addresses these questions from a scientific perspective. Thus far, in two position papers the Institute has determined which aspects should be considered and which challenges may result from legislative intervention. A brief summary of these analyses in the form of questions and answers is found below. The outcome is that the Institute wants to warn against simplistic considerations and hasty regulatory proposals. Current law permits broad, interest-appropriate decisions already. In particular, an additional “ownership right” in data is not only unnecessary, it is also rightly rejected by broad segments of German industry. Experience and research to date have effectively shown that participants do well when governed by contracts. If at anything all, questions may arise regarding access to data – but even then only in specific sectors. In no way are unilateral national actions advisable. The data-driven economy takes places globally and as far as possible uniform regulations should prevail, at least in the European internal market. Regulations that apply only in Germany may ultimately hinder rather than promote today’s industry and economy. This is the case, especially, if room to maneuverer and develop is restricted in comparison with international competitors.

10 Questions and Answers (pdf)

Download the Position Statement! (english)

Download the Position Statement! (chinese)

A video with Dietmar Harhoff on “Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets” has been published on Latest Thinking. lt.org is a platform unlocking frontier research to the public. Everyone interested in science should be able to access the world’s cutting-edge research - yet, most scientific publications address an expert audience only. The researchers personally explain their latest insights into the realities of life.

Dietmar Harhoff gives answers to the question whether the instrument of opposition during the patent filing process needs to be improved. Patents are a very useful tool for supporting innovations by setting incentives for companies to invest in research and developments. However, only those innovations should be protected by a patent that are truly inventive. Otherwise, patents might actually end up stifling innovations rather than supporting them. This happens in the case of patent thickets where there are overlapping patents that block each other. Dietmar Harhoff explains that this situation should be avoided by the mechanism of opposition: After the patent is granted by the patent examiner, third parties have the opportunity to oppose the examiner’s decision. As described in this video, the researchers used graph theory to analyze patent thickets involving three companies to uncover in which situations this instrument fails. Their findings indicate that, if a patent holder is embedded in such a thicket, they are less likely to challenge a patent application to avoid an escalation between the parties that might end up in court. Furthermore, if there is a large number of companies that could oppose a certain patent, the incentive for any of these companies to oppose is reduced as only one of them has to shoulder the costs of the process while all of them benefit.

Watch here

Position Statement

Download of the position statement!
(Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/link/positionpaper-data-2016-08-16.html)

Download the Position Statement!

English version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-en.html)

Japanese version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-jp.html)

Chinese version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-chin.html)

Portuguese version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-port.html)

Spanish version (Shortlink: http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/link/patent-protection-es.html)

List of authors

List of further contributors

Signing the declaration
If you want to sign the declaration as a supporter, please send us your name, title, affiliation and function to patentdeclaration(at)ip.mpg.de.

List of supporters

The Ministry had commissioned the Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition to prepare the study in order to provide a better empirical basis for legal-political discussions of copyright law in the digital age.

Digitalization is a key driver for innovations and the emergence of new business models. Internet-based value-creation processes are increasingly changing the basic conditions for creativity while at the same time opening up new ways to disseminate and use many different types of content. Accordingly, copyright as a legal instrument to promote innovation and creativity is also confronted with new challenges. Its role in this context must be determined not only from a legal, but also from an economic perspective. Basic groundwork for this task includes charting and analyzing those technological and economic changes that digitalization and interconnectedness entail. Trends regarding technological developments and value-creation models are particularly visible in the kinds of young enterprises that are currently introducing innovative, internet-based business models. If there is a connection between their business models and copyright law, this connection can make it possible to draw conclusions as to which basic legal conditions might influence innovation in digital markets in a positive or a negative way.

For the study, 40 startups with internet-based business models were surveyed, whereby “startup” was defined as an enterprise under ten years old implementing an innovative business model or innovative technology and striving for significant growth. The goal of the interviews with the startups was to determine which parameters of copyright law the entrepreneurs saw as containing a potential for conflict with their own business model. Thus the first step was to determine what role copyright-protected content played in the creation of value and who the authors of this content were. Next, it was ascertained what copyright-related questions, insecurities or risks arose for the startups with regard to this content. Finally, the entrepreneurs were asked how they responded to these challenges in their day-to-day business.

The study was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and carried out jointly by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and the Center for Digital Technology and Management (CDTM). A multidisciplinary analysis taking technical, economic and legal aspects into account, the study reveals many of the challenges faced by German copyright law with respect to innovation in digital markets. The work thus provides an empirical basis for drafting proposals for a reform of German copyright law.

Die vorliegende Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb befasst sich mit dem Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz für ein Gesetz zur Anpassung patentrechtlicher Vorschriften aufgrund der europäischen Patentreform (im Folgenden: Begleitgesetz-Entwurf). Die Stellungnahme verfolgt einen dreifachen Zweck.

Erstens werden ergänzende Regelungen vorgeschlagen, die eine Umgehung der Einrede der doppelten Inanspruchnahme erschweren sollen. Es wird insbesondere angeregt, auf die Voraussetzung der Parteiidentität auf der Klägerseite zu verzichten, um einen angemessenen Beklagtenschutz zu gewährleisten.

Zweitens wird die geplante teilweise Aufhebung des Doppelschutzverbotes einer kritischen Würdigung im Lichte der Ziele der EU-Patentreform unterzogen. Die Stellungnahme spricht sich für ein umfassendes Doppelschutzverbot aus.

Schließlich werden Vorschläge unterbreitet, die gewisse Gestaltungsspielräume des Übereinkommens über ein Einheitliches Patentgericht (im Folgenden: EPGÜ) und des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens (im Folgenden: EPÜ) nutzen, um Rechtsunsicherheiten und Ungleichbehandlungen vorzubeugen, die sich aus der EU-Patentreform ergeben können. Diese Vorschläge betreffen insbesondere:

(i) Die Schaffung einer Umwandlungsmöglichkeit des Einheitspatents in eine nationale Patentanmeldung im Fall einer Nichtigerklärung aufgrund des Art. 139 Abs. 2 EPÜ;

(ii) die Schließung möglicher unionswidriger Lücken, die sich aus der Nicht-Umsetzung der Art. 8-10 Abs. 1 BioPat-RL im EPGÜ ergeben könnten;

(iii) die Anpassung des PatG an die materiellen Normen des EPGÜ.

PDF herunterladen