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)

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