Veranstaltungen

Der Ökonom Fritz Machlup erklärte 1958 im U.S. Kongress, er könne nicht sagen, ob das Patentrecht den technischen Fortschritt mehr fördere oder hindere. Sechzig Jahre später können wir feststellen, dass weiterhin keine vergleichbare Alternative besteht. Trotz ständig neuer Herausforderungen und wachsender Kritik erfreut sich das Patentsystem steigenden Nutzerzahlen und größerer Verbreitung. Was nun: Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen oder Patentrecht in der Krise?

Die These des Referenten lautet, dass das Patentrechtssystem so lange interessant bleibt, wie es glaubwürdige Antworten auf sich verändernde Bedürfnisse der interessierten Kreise bietet; kurzum: wie es die ihm zugedachten Funktionen erfüllt. Es gehört deshalb ständig überprüft und revidiert. Ob und wo allenfalls Anpassungsbedarf in Europa besteht, beleuchtet der Referent nicht abschließend an Hand von drei unterschiedlichen Herausforderungen:

1. dem Offenlegungserfordernis der Herkunft genetischer Ressourcen und traditionellen Wissens in Patentanmeldungen;
2. der Sicherstellung der medizinischen Behandlungsfreiheit für Ärzte und Apotheker im Lichte der mit der Entscheidung G 2/08 geänderten EPA-Rechtsprechung; sowie
3. der Frage der Transparenz über Patente im Saatgutbereich.

Sein Fazit lautet: Ein paar ‚Schwalben‘ machen noch keine Krise, doch es besteht Handlungsbedarf.

Der Referent Prof. Dr. iur. Felix Addor ist der stellvertretende Direktor und Rechtskonsulent des Eidgenössischen Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum (IGE), dem Kompetenzzentrum in der Schweizer Verwaltung für alle Fragen des Geistigen Eigentums. Er leitet seit 2000 den für Politik-Dienstleistungen zuständigen Direktionsbereich des IGE, d.h. er ist insb. zuständig für die verwaltungsinterne Vorbereitung und parlamentarische Begleitung der Gesetzgebung. Seit 2008 ist er auch Titularprofessor an der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Bern und seit 2013 Senior Fellow am Global Health Centre des Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Genf.

Seine Tätigkeitsschwerpunkte umfassen Verhandlungslehre, alternative Streitregelungsmethoden, öffentliche Gesundheitsdiplomatie sowie alle Bereiche des Immaterialgüterrechts. Er schloss seine Studien der Rechtswissenschaften an der Universität Bern ab mit dem Staatsexamen als Rechtsanwalt (1990 – magna cum laude) und der Promotion (1997 – summa cum laude). Für seine Dissertation im Zivilverfahrensrecht erhielt er 1998 den Walther Hug Preis.

Laden Sie sich die Einladung für die Veranstaltung herunter.

Bitte melden Sie sich bis zum 20. Juni 2016 unter anmeldung(at)ip.mpg.de an.

From June 20 to June 22, 2016, the Center for Law & Economics at ETH Zurich, the Institute for Strategy, Technology and Organization at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich and the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will jointly organize the first Munich Summer Institute (MSI 2016).

The Munich Summer Institute 2016 will focus on three areas:

• Digitization, Strategy and Organization (June 20, 2016) (chairs: Tobias Kretschmer and Jörg Claussen)
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship (June 21, 2016) (chair: Dietmar Harhoff)
• Law & Economics of Innovation (June 22, 2016) (chair: Stefan Bechtold)

The goal of the Munich Summer Institute is to stimulate a rigorous in-depth discussion of a select number of research papers and to strengthen the interdisciplinary international research community in these areas.

Researchers in economics, law, management and related fields at all stages of their career (from Ph.D. students to full professors) may attend the Munich Summer Institute as presenters, discussants or attendants.

The Munich Summer Institute will feature keynote lecturers (by Chris Forman (Georgia Tech), Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley) and Rosemary Ziedonis (Boston University)), up to 19 plenary presentations (each with a discussant), as well as poster sessions (including a poster slam).

The Munich Summer Institute will be held at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities in the heart of Munich. The organizers will fund travel and Hotel expenses for all plenary Speakers and hotel expenses for all poster presenters.

Any questions concerning the Munich Summer Institute should be directed to Stefan Bechtold, Dietmar Harhoff or Tobias Kretschmer.

The program is available here.

The general information is available here.

The papers are available here:

June 20, 2016: Digitization, Strategy and Organization

June 21, 2016: Innovation and Entrepreneurship

June 22, 2016: Law & Economics of Innovation

Abstract:

Does the emigration of high-skilled individuals necessarily reduce innovation in the source country due to the loss of human capital? Combining industry- and inventor-level patenting and migration data from 30 European countries, we show that emigration can positively contribute to patenting in source countries due to the existence of reverse knowledge flows.

Both OLS and IV regressions suggest that bilateral knowledge flows (measured by cross-border citations and collaborations) increase in the number of high-skilled migrants. While the high-skilled migrants are not inventing in their home country anymore, they contribute to cross-border knowledge and technology diffusion and thus help poorer countries to catch up to the technology frontier.

Abstract:

For high-tech startups, gaining access to resources and funding is often considered crucial. This need has created technology markets to attract partners and resource providers. Corporate venturing is a form of markets for technology (MfT) that provides nurturing, specialized advice and resources to new technology by investing in startups. However the typical issues involved with MfT – namely misappropriation risks– have made startups reluctant about sharing their key technological information with corporate venture capitalists (CVC), potentially retarding efficient market matching and consequently technology development. Lifting informational constraints may facilitate the market and enable us to measure the pure impact of CVC investment.

Assessing the potential impact of information constraints has been challenging due to severe endogeneity concerns. This study investigates the causal impact of technological information exposure on the likelihood, quality and timing of CVC-startup match formation. We exploit the American Inventor’s Protection Act (AIPA) as an exogenous shock to technological information publicity, which enables us to measure an unbiased impact of information exposure. The results confirm that strategic information withhold by startups has lowered the incident of CVC investments, while informational exposure increases the likelihood, quality and hazard rate of CVC-startup match.

Please drop us a line if you plan to attend.

Wir möchten das 50-jährige Bestehen gemeinsam mit Ihnen im Rahmen einer zweitägigen Jubiläumsveranstaltung – einem Festakt am ersten Tag und einem wissenschaftlichen Symposium am zweiten Tag – gebührend feiern und zum Anlass nehmen, bisherige Forschungsbeiträge des Instituts und mögliche zukünftige Schwerpunkte für die Forschung zu erörtern.

Weitere Informationen finden Sie auf unserer Webseite "50-jähriges Jubiläum".

Abstract:

This paper studies the implications of internal social comparisons – benchmarking business units against each other – for organizational adaptation and performance. While extant research has mainly focused on the effects of internal social comparisons on the volume of organizational effort, we build on behavioral theory on organizational adaptation and aspiration-driven search to suggest that such comparisons may also affect the direction of effort. Using a computational model, we show how internal social comparisons can effectively regulate organizational search processes through two mechanisms:

1. a classification effect whereby the organization is guaranteed to contain both exploring and exploiting units, and
2. a sampling effect whereby social comparisons protect against premature switching from exploitation to exploration.

We explore important boundary conditions on the viability of internal social comparisons, including environmental dynamics, resource munificence, and the comparability of business units. We also demonstrate how the performance of internal social comparisons is boosted in the presence of complementarities between business units. Thus, under appropriate circumstances, internal social comparisons can affect firm performance in beneficial ways, suggesting why many executives actively encourage such comparisons. The study has implications for work on intra-organizational competition, aspirations-driven search, the adaptation of multi-unit firms, and balancing exploration and exploitation.

See paper attached.

Abstract:

The underrepresentation of women at the top of hierarchies is often explained by gender differences in preferences. We find support for this claim by analyzing a large dataset from an online card game community, a stylized yet natural setting characterized by self-selection into an uncertain, competitive and male-dominated environment. We observe gender differences in playing behavior consistent with women being more averse towards risk and competition. Moreover, we demonstrate how “shying away” makes female players less successful: despite no gender gap in playing skills, women accumulate lower scores than men due to their relative avoidance of risky and competitive situations.

Abstract:

Studies on moderators of the innovation performance relationship in entrepreneurship research are scarce. Thus in this paper we use a dataset consisting of 416 entrepreneurs from the German federal state of Thuringia in order to examine the moderating effect of the Big Five personality traits extraversion, openness and conscientiousness on the relationship between entrepreneurial innovation and exit by failure in highly innovative industries. Correspondingly, we identify exit by failure with the help of bankruptcy information and self-reports. In order to account for self-selection into innovative entrepreneurship, stratification on the propensity score is utilized to overcome self-selection bias. After accounting for self-selection into innovation, we find that personality moderates the innovation failure relationship. Extraversion strengthens the negative effect of innovation on exit by failure. In contrast, openness and conscientiousness weaken the negative effect of innovation on entrepreneurial failure.