Ist die staatliche Risikoübernahme bei Terrorrismusrisiken mit dem europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht vereinbar?

Nach den terroristischen Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 wurde sowohl in der Versicherungspraxis als auch in der Wissenschaft kontrovers darüber diskutiert, ob der Staat bei solchen als "nicht versicherbar" geltenden Terrorismusrisiken mithaften soll. Als Folge der Ereignisse des 11. September 2001 ist in Deutschland die Extremus Versicherungsaktiengesellschaft entstanden, die Versicherungsschutz gegen Terrorismusrisiken anbietet und an de-ren Haftung der deutsche Staat beteiligt ist. Fraglich ist, ob eine solche Staatsbeteiligung an der Extremus AG eine unzulässige Beihilfe im Sinne des Art. 87 EGV darstellt und damit gegen das europäische Wettbewerbsrecht verstößt. Die wettbewerbsrechtliche Überprüfung der Extremus AG hat ergeben, dass die der Extremus AG gegebene staatliche Beihilfe in Form von Staatsgarantie ausnahmsweise zulässig ist.

Open Source und Kartellrecht

„Open source and European antitrust laws: An analysis of copyleft and the prohibition of software license fees on the basis of art. 101 TFEU and the block exemptions“ Open source software and open source licenses (like the GNU GPL) are not only relevant for computer nerds or activists – they are already business. They are for example the fundament of LINUX, the only real rival of MICROSOFT’s WINDOWS-line in the field of operating systems for IBM PC compatibles. Art. 101 TFEU (like the identical predecessor art. 81 TEC) as part of the EU antitrust laws prohibits contract terms like price fixing and some forms of technology control. Are copyleft – the „viral effect“, the „cancer“ – and the interdiction of software license fees in the cross hairs of this legal rule? On the other side the European Union has since 2004 a new Technology Transfer Block Exemption with software license agreements for the first time in its scope: a safe harbour and a dry place under a umbrella for open source software? After the introduction (A) with a description of open source software the following text analyses the system of the European Unions competition law respectivley antitrust law and the requirements of the block exemptions (B). Starting point of antitrust analysis are undertakings – but who are the untertakings (C) in the field of widespread, independent developers as part of the „bazar organization“? To see how much open source has to fear from the law of the European Union, at the end the anti competitive and pro competitive effects of open source are totalized within the legal framework (D). The conclusion (E) shows: not nothing, but not much.

Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Comperterprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht

This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.

GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

Cloud Computing in the EU Policy Sphere Interoperability, Vertical Integration and the Internal Market

Cloud computing is a new development that is based on the premise that data and applications are stored centrally and can be accessed through the Internet. Thisarticle sets up a broad analysis of how the emergence of clouds relates to European competition law, network regulation and electronic commerce regulation, which we relate to challenges for the further development of cloud services in Europe: interoperability and data portability between clouds; issues relating to vertical integration between clouds and Internet Service Providers; and potential problems for clouds to operate on the European Internal Market. We find that these issues are not adequately addressed across the legal frameworks that we analyse, and argue for further research into how to better facilitate innovative convergent services such as cloud computing through European policy – especially in light of the ambitious digital agenda that the European Commission has set out.