Innovation Law & Policy eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Google as a de facto Privacy Regulator: Analyzing Chrome’s Removal of Third-party Cookies from an Antitrust Perspective","authors":"D. Geradin, Dimitrios Katsifis, Theano Karanikioti","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3738107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3738107","url":null,"abstract":"Online advertising is what funds free online content. Since its birth in the 1990’s, it has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry. At the core of this industry lies the ability to identify and track users through various technical means, such as web cookies. Online tracking for advertising purposes has sparked privacy concerns, and is subject to a growing body of regulation across the world. But the most important rules seem to come from a handful of large technology platforms, namely Google and Apple. In their capacity as suppliers of the most popular browsers and smart mobile OSs, these companies are taking a series of measures in the name of user privacy that restrict the ability to identify users, thus shaking the very foundations of online advertising. In what is a first in a series of papers exploring Google and Apple’s role as de facto privacy regulators for online advertising, we propose to explore in detail Chrome’s decision to phase out support for third-party cookies, accompanied by a set of proposals known as the Privacy Sandbox. Considering that Google is the subject of growing antitrust scrutiny in the US and Europe, we query whether Chrome’s decision raises any antitrust concerns – and if so, how such concerns fit within existing antitrust investigations. At a conceptual level, we use this paper as an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between competition law and privacy and the trade-offs regulators may have to make.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128413536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Privacy Enhancing Technologies and Synthetic Data","authors":"P. Wagner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3762686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3762686","url":null,"abstract":"Privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) are a set of technologies that assist organizations in protecting data. In addition to PETs, there are Transparency Enhancing Technologies (TETs) and Intervenability Enhancing Technologies (IETs). These technologies are complementary approaches to PETs. TETs are “tools which can provide to the individual concerned clear visibility of aspects relevant to [its personal] data and the individual’s privacy” (Zimmerman, 2015). While PETs work to minimize data, TETs provide users with information regarding the data handling behavior of third parties. IETs provide users opportunities to intervene and encompass control including giving, denying or withdrawing consent, and blocking or erasing personal data. IETs “aim[] at the possibility for parties involved in any privacy-relevant data processing to interfere with the ongoing or planned data processing (Karegar, 2018).” However, technologies associated with intervenability are currently limited. This paper will provide an overview of PETs and then further explore the specific PET of synthetic data sets technology.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127472691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Geometry of Innovation","authors":"A. Bussy, Friedrich Geiecke","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3676831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676831","url":null,"abstract":"We use methods from Natural Language Processing to characterize the innovative content of patents. We develop several metrics that compare inventions to existing and future innovations. The intuition guiding us is that patents dissimilar to past inventions and similar to future ones may have anticipated or started shifts in innovation topics. We find evidence that such patents have higher citations and the firms owning them grow faster and are more profitable relative to other firms. Analysis of trends suggests that innovative ideas may have gotten harder to find over time in high-innovation fields.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127496833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PTAB Challenges and Innovation: A Probabilistic Approach","authors":"Matteo Sabattini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3668216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3668216","url":null,"abstract":"Patents exist to provide our country’s innovators with the ability to be compensated for the important technological contributions that they create in exchange for the disclosure of their inventions. This is a concept so important that our Nation’s founding fathers enshrined patents in the US Constitution. However, in recent years, and especially after the America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted in 2011 and the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) created, it became suddenly much easier to challenge the validity of patents in multiple venues and at multiple times.<br><br>The goal of the PTAB, and in particular of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), was to create a cheaper, alternative option to litigation. Some have argued that the PTAB helped to provide a check on patents that had been issued prior to the USPTO instituting an improved system of checks and balances on patent quality prior to issuance. However, in some cases, the PTAB has been used for a more nefarious intent and has simply become a burdensome overlay to any litigation, and sometimes used offensively even before any assertion or licensing demand is brought by a patent owner.<br><br>While some argue that the PTAB is a useful, sometimes necessary tool to ensure patent quality, others have argued that the very high invalidity rates show a bias against patent owners in favor of those challenging their patents. One of the main problems at the heart of the IPR system is the possibility to challenge, an endless number of times, the same patent in light of newly found prior art. While we recognize that sometimes more petitions are justified and possibly necessary, and the fact that a patent is challenged multiple times is not per se an abuse of the system, one should be mindful of the effects of allowing a very large number of serial challenges against the same patent or claims. The issue of many multiple challenges undermines predictability in the innovation community, and defending from many multiple petitions also represents a significant cost for patent owners, further disincentivizing innovation. <br><br>However, as we will explain in this short article, the lack of predictability and financial burden are not the only issues faced by patent owners and innovators in general. In fact, there is a more subtle and yet significant effect on the innovation ecosystem in allowing parties to challenge a patent an inexhaustible number of times: Endless challenges to the same patent, even if each individual challenge is poor, will eventually lead to a denial of that patent right. If any patent can be killed in this manner, a fair question can be asked whether our patent system as constructed still upholds its constitutional directive to encourage innovation.<br><br>We will mathematically prove below that given even a small probability to invalidate a patent with multiple poor challenges, all patents can be invalidated. In practice, since arguments based on a patent’s “obviousness” actually are endless (","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"75 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120894816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fair Use Quotation Licenses: A Private Sector Solution to DMCA Takedown Abuse on YouTube","authors":"Timothy E Chung","doi":"10.52214/JLA.V44I1.7311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/JLA.V44I1.7311","url":null,"abstract":"Part I of this Note covers the history of the fair use doctrine and its interplay with the DMCA, specifically within the context of video-hosting platforms likeYouTube, and examines how recent case law developments concerning the DMCA have fostered an environment that is ripe for abuse. Part II then argues that most content creators on YouTube have little to no recourse if their fair use creations are flagged as infringing content by right holders who request DMCA takedowns. Specifically, YouTube’s copyright policies and the excessive costs of litigation disincentivize users from fighting DMCA takedowns or pursuing legal actions to counteract bad faith behavior. As a consequence, the fair use defense is inaccessible to most YouTube content creators. Finally, Part III proposes the implementation of a quotation licensing scheme as one option to mitigate DMCA takedown abuse on YouTube. In recognizing the value of fair use for incentivizing creation, this scheme would contractually carve out a small exception to infringement, permitting limited appropriation of fellow users’ content on YouTube.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128086028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Global Drug Diffusion and Innovation with a Patent Pool: The Case of HIV Drug Cocktails","authors":"Lucy Xiaolu Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3426554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3426554","url":null,"abstract":"I study the impact of the first joint licensing platform for patented drugs, the Medicines Patent Pool, on global drug diffusion and innovation. The pool allows generic firms worldwide to license drug bundles cheaply and conveniently for sales in a set of developing countries. I construct a novel dataset from licensing contracts, public procurement, clinical trials, and drug approvals. Using difference-in-differences methods, I find that the pool leads to substantial increases in the generic supply of drugs purchased. In addition, there are positive responses in R&D inputs and outputs. Finally, I estimate a simple structural model to quantify welfare gains.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115123953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Doctrine of Exhaustion in Limbo - Critical Remarks on the CJEU’s Tom Kabinet Ruling","authors":"Péter Mezei","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3560138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560138","url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Justice of the European Union published its much awaited preliminary ruling in Case C-263/18, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers (the Tom Kabinet case) in December 2019. In its UsedSoft ruling (Case C-128/11), the CJEU accepted the exhaustion of distribution right for computer programs disseminated online. Following UsedSoft, the CJEU tried to refine its view on (digital) exhaustion, but many of its subsequent judgments (e.g. in Nintendo, Art & Allposters, Svensson, Stichting Leenrecht, Renckhoff) complicated the legal environment. The expectations were high in Tom Kabinet and the need for consistency was badly needed. The CJEU followed First Advocate General Maciej Szpunar’s restrictive approach and refused the digital exhaustion doctrine regarding e-books. The CJEU’s judgment not only created an inconsistency, but it further deepened uncertainties in this field. This paper aims to introduce the Tom Kabinet ruling, and discuss its direct and indirect consequences in copyright law.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134333112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"European Privacy Law and Global Markets for Data","authors":"Christian Peukert, S. Bechtold, M. Batikas, T. Kretschmer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3560392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560392","url":null,"abstract":"We demonstrate how privacy law interacts with competition and trade policy in the context of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We follow more than 110,000 websites for 18 months to show that websites reduced their connections to web technology providers after GDPR became effective, especially regarding requests involving personal data. This also holds for websites catering to non-EU audiences and therefore not bound by GDPR. We further document an increase in market concentration in web technology services after the introduction of GDPR. While most firms lose market share, the leading firm, Google, significantly increases market share.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115078649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Learning by Selling, Knowledge Spillovers, and Patents","authors":"Yves Guéron, Jihong Lee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3434224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3434224","url":null,"abstract":"We examine the incentives for experimentation in the context of innovation and market competition. A monopolist chooses whether to sell early-stage product or perform costly scale-up R&amp;D. Early market participation facilitates learning about demand but invites knowledge spillovers and competitors, while R&amp;D acts as a barrier to entry. We derive the firm's optimal policy and analyze the impact of various market characteristics. The model admits both under- and over-experimentation vis-a-vis the socially optimal policy. Patents can control the pace of innovation and restore the efficient level of experimentation. When the surplus from R&amp;D is large, rewarding early-stage innovation limits socially wasteful investments. We offer a theory of two-tier patent policy involving so-called \"petty\" patents.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122497959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perfectionist Types in the English as a Foreign Language Teaching Profession in Russia","authors":"Kenneth T. Wang, Tatiana M. Permyakova, M. Sheveleva","doi":"10.17323/jle.2019.8327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.8327","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines perfectionism in the English language teaching profession in Russia. The aims are threefold: 1) to use latent profile analysis (LPA) to classify English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers into different types of perfectionists; 2) to compare different types of perfectionists using depression-anxiety-stress indicators (DASS); 3) to study the link between perfectionism and the perception of one’s professional teaching activity. We used convenience sampling by collecting data from 117 English teachers (5% males, 95% females; age range 20-64; M= 39; SD=12) with the Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). LPA was conducted to determine the optimal number of types of individuals based on their SAPS profile. Three distinct classes of perfectionists were found (adaptive, maladaptive, non-perfectionists). 27% of the respondents fell into the category of maladaptive perfectionists with high scores on both the Standards and Discrepancy subscales. Teachers with higher Standards tend to be more aware of their perfectionism. Teachers who are less satisfied with their English proficiency tend to be more stressed at work. However, the results of the study did not indicate significant differences between the perfectionist types on anxiety, depression, and stress. The findings suggest the need to develop these scales further for measuring perfectionism in the teaching profession and in EFL teaching particularly.","PeriodicalId":302796,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116706253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}