Events

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

We explore how firms frame catastrophic innovation failure for external audiences. Failure events may lead external audiences to doubt the firm’s ultimate chances of success. Because it is difficult for those audiences to ascertain whether the failure occurred due to the uncertainty inherent to innovation (experimentation uncertainty) or due to managerial or organizational shortcomings (execution uncertainty), a firm’s own framing of the failure may critically influence external audiences’ interpretations. We analyze three cases of catastrophic innovation failure at two firms in the private space industry - SpaceX and Virgin Galactic—using market-facing communications, including social media, blogs, corporate websites, press releases, and news articles. We find that firms frame catastrophic innovation failure considering

(1) the extent to which they incorporated the notion of failure into their external narrative prior to the failure, and

(2) the nature of the catastrophic event itself. We identify a tension inherent to the crafting of organizational narratives for innovating firms, between promising success (which elicits external audiences’ support) and acknowledging the possibility of failure (which may deter them). Our findings indicate a need for innovating firms to weave a sense of ‘optimal promise’ into their external narratives, balancing the zeal of success with the possibility of failure.

Contact Person: Zhaoxin Pu

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

This paper investigates how a major mental disorder - bipolar disorder - affects people’s careers. Individual-level registry data for the population of Denmark allows us examine variation in mental health diagnoses, prescriptions, and earnings for 2.5 million people born between 1946 and 1975. These data show that people with bipolar disorder earn 32 percent less than the overall population and 36 percent less than their siblings. To examine the effects of mental health treatments, we exploit the introduction of lithium as a targeted treatment for bipolar disorder in 1976. Baseline difference-in-differences regressions compare career penalties of mental disorder for people who had access to treatment when they turned 20 with people who did not have access. OLS estimates indicate that access to treatment led to a 30 percent reduction in the earnings penalty (from 32 to 22 percent). A major policy concern is that mental health disorders – and differential access to treatment – may exacerbate inequality. To investigate this issue, we estimate differential effects of bipolar disorder and access to treatment across the earnings distribution. This analysis reveals a dramatic differential effect of mental health – and treatments – on low end of the earnings distribution. In the lowest 10 percent of the earnings distribution, people with bipolar disorder earn 82 percent less than the overall population. Access to treatment closes this gap almost completely, by 89 percent (from 82 to 73 percent).

Contact Person: Zhaoxin Pu

Moderated by Moritz Suttner

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competiton, room E 10

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Professional bibliometrics is characterized by using field-normalized indicators for research evaluation. Citation rates differ by field (independently of the papers’ quality) and these differences should be considered in cross-field comparisons (e.g. of universities). In the first part of the presentation, the standard field-normalization approaches are explained. Several examples are presented of how field-normalized scores can be used for research evaluation. In the second part of the presentation, some current research projects and recently developed tools in the area of bibliometrics are shown.

Full paper

Contact Person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

In cooperation with WIPO, LES and the Munich IPDR Forum, we will be hosting the 2017 WIPO ADR Workshop on 9 and 10 November 2017. The event will have the character of both an academic conference and an instructional workshop.

On the first day we will discuss general arbitration and mediation issues that have relevance for IP disputes. Among these are, besides the basic procedural processes, topics like arbitrability of IP disputes, competition-law related ordre public concerns and the tension between the public interest in transparent arbitration procedures on the one hand and the interest of individual parties in privacy and confidentiality on the other hand.

The focus of the second day will be on disputes regarding the calculation of FRAND licensing fees for use of standard-essential patents. Standard-essential patents have so far had their greatest impact on the telecommunications industry. In view of the increasing connectedness of the industry, discussed under the key words Internet of Things and Industry 4.0, and the growing degree of automation and digitalization of a wide range of products, such as self-driving cars, standardization will be a topic with even greater fundamental significance in the future. It is established that the owners of standard-essential patents have to make the standard technologies for which they hold exclusive patents available to interested standards users on FRAND terms. What is unclear and controversial, however, is how to calculate FRAND-consistent terms and fees, and how to conduct related dispute resolution procedures. In view of the complexity of the calculation of FRAND licensing fees, the European Commission has made repeated reference to arbitration as a possible dispute-resolution instrument. The Court of Justice of the European Union in its landmark decision of 16 July 2015 (C-170/13, Tz. 68 – Huawei) likewise identifies the possibility of a private-autonomous resolution of disputes, though limiting its statement on procedural design to the vague reference that “the amount of the royalty [may] be determined by an independent third party, by decision without delay”. To promote legal clarity in this economically important area and to provide a contribution to increasing the efficiency of dispute resolution, we are currently, in a series of preparatory workshops, putting together a proposal for guidelines on designing alternative dispute-resolution procedures in conformity with FRAND principles (FRAND ADR Case Management Guidelines). We will present a first draft of the Guidelines at the ADR Workshop.

Contact person: Dr. Axel Walz

Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb, München, Raum E10

Liebe Mitglieder des Max-Planck-Instituts,
sehr herzlich laden wir Euch/Sie zu einer Paneldiskussion zu aktuellen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der privaten Kartellrechtsdurchsetzung (private enforcement) ein.

Wir freuen uns sehr, dass wir ausgewiesene Spezialisten für die Veranstaltung gewinnen konnten:

• Susanne Amenda, Senior Legal Counsel, Siemens AG, München
• Dr. Andreas Boos, Special Counsel Milbank, München
• Dr. Hans W. Friederiszick, Managing Director, E.CA Economics, Berlin

Wie gewohnt lädt das Münchner Kartellrechtsforum anschließend zum informellen Austausch bei Getränken und Häppchen ein.

Wir bitten um Anmeldung bis zum 2. November 2017 bei delia.zirilli(at)ip.mpg.de.

Wir freuen uns auf einen spannenden und informativen Austausch!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt
Münchner Kartellrechtsforum e. V.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

This paper studies how early stage entrepreneurs learn about the quality of their ventures. I assess the effect of negative feedback on abandonment using application and judging data from 87 new venture competitions, 34 of which privately informed founders of their relative rank. I use a difference-in-differences design and matching estimators to compare lower and higher ranked losers, across competitions in which they did and did not observe their standing. Receiving negative feedback increased venture abandonment by about 13 percent. The effect occurs quickly, doubles among women founders, and increases with signal precision. It decreases with venture maturity and riskiness.

Contact Person: Dr. Fabian Gaessler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room E10

Dr. Christoph Ernst wurde 1954 in Bremen geboren. Zunächst Tätigkeit als Rechtsanwalt in Bremen mit den Schwerpunkten Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht sowie Steuerrecht; 1989 Erwerb der Zusatzqualifikation „Fachanwalt für Steuerrecht“. Danach Beginn der Tätigkeit im Bundesministerium der Justiz in der Abteilung für Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht. Seit Mai 2010 Leiter einer Unterabteilung im BMJV mit den Schwerpunkten Allgemeines Wirtschaftsrecht, Neue Technologien und Geistiges Eigentum. Leiter der deutschen Delegation im Verwaltungsrat des EPA und Mitglied des Präsidiums des Verwaltungsrats. Seit 1. Oktober 2017 Vorsitzender des Verwaltungsrats. Vertreter Deutschlands in den europäischen Gremien zur Vorbereitung des EU-Patents (Engerer Ausschuss bei der EPO und Vorbereitungsausschuss zur Europäischen Patentgerichtsbarkeit). Ebenso Leiter der deutschen Delegation im Verwaltungsrat des EU-Amtes für Geistiges Eigentum in Alicante (EUIPO). Darüber hinaus deutscher Vertreter bei der Generalversammlung der WIPO.

Ansprechpartner: Dr. Matthias Lamping

Anmeldung: Elisabeth Amler

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Room 313

This paper focuses on the relationship between therapeutic value and different measures of market rewards (the number of patents, price, market share, and total revenues) of a new treatment. Using an assessment of therapeutic value provided by the French Haute Authorité de Santé (HAS), I find a weak relationship between most measures of rewards and this assessment of therapeutic value, suggesting that the returns to developing a “me-too” product are not very different from developing treatments with greater therapeutic effects. One interpretation is that the HAS score is a poor assessment of therapeutic value, in which case the use of similar health technology assessments by governments and other payers should be re-examined. Alternatively, if the HAS score is informative, the results suggest countries are spending too much on less innovative products, and that a re-balancing of innovation incentives may be worth considering if therapeutic value is highly related to social welfare.

Contact Person: Zhaoxin Pu