Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Smart Urban Mobility: A Positive or Negative IP Space? A Case Study to Test the Role of IP in Fostering Digital Data-Driven Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Smart Urban Mobility

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 29))

Abstract

Not all innovative processes rely on IP exclusive rights to incentivize and protect their content. While strategic considerations on the costs and convenience of IP enforcement generally play an important role, in specific sectors alternative norms and practices have proven more effective than exclusive rights in fostering progress by turning inclusivity into benefits, thus challenging IP protection at its core. At a first glance, the wide-ranging sector of digital data-driven innovations presents a twofold nature: on the one hand, they require remarkable investments, which likely call for a strict approach to IP rights; and on the other hand, they make interoperability and follow-up creations key factors of technological progress, thus valuing inclusivity in the enhancement of resource allocation and services.

Against this background, the paper aims to investigate the role and incentivizing potential of IP rights in the smart urban mobility context, which represents an innovative sector of remarkable social impact and is rapidly on the rise. By applying the conceptual framework of legal and economic theories exploring the so-called ‘IP negative spaces’, this study highlights strengths and weaknesses of the exclusive rights paradigm in the promotion and management of innovative ideas for advancing urban planning and life in European cities.

Giulia Priora is Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Comparative Private Law, Caterina Sganga is Associate Professor of Comparative Private Law, both at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Adriano Tanda and Alberto De Marco, ‘Business Model Framework for Smart City Mobility Projects’ (2019) 471 IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2.

  2. 2.

    See, inter alia, Clara Benevolo, Renata P Dameri and Beatrice D’Auria, ‘Smart Mobility in Smart City: Action Taxonomy, ICT Intensity and Public Benefits’ in Teresina Torre, Alessio M Braccini and Riccardo Spinelli (eds), Empowering Organizations: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (vol 11, Springer 2016); Andrea Caragliu, Chiara Del Bo and Peter Nijkamp, ‘Smart Cities in Europe’ (2011) 18 Journal of Urban Technology 2.

  3. 3.

    See Benevolo, Dameri and D’Auria (n 2).

  4. 4.

    Hans Schaffers and others, ‘Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation’ in John Domingue (ed), The Future Internet: Future Internet Assembly 2011: Achievements and Technological Promises (Springer 2011) 431–434; Jesse Shapiro, ‘Smart Cities: Quality of Life, Productivity, and the Growth Effects of Human Capital’ (2006) 88 The Review of Economics and Statistics 324.

  5. 5.

    See Renata Dameri and Francesca Ricciardi, ‘Smart City Intellectual Capital: An Emerging View of Territorial Systems Innovation Management’ (2015) 16 Journal of Intellectual Capital 861.

  6. 6.

    Caragliu, Del Bo and Nijkamp (n 2).

  7. 7.

    For a detailed overview of the relevant costs see Schaffers and others (n 4) 435ff.

  8. 8.

    Eg Niva Elkin-Koren and Eli Salzberger, The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: The Limits of Analysis (Routledge 2013) 57ff; Robert Merges, Justifying Intellectual Property (Harvard University Press 2011).

  9. 9.

    Rochelle Dreyfuss, ‘Does IP Need IP? Accommodating Intellectual Production Outside the Intellectual Property Paradigm’ (2010) 31 Cardozo Law Review 1140; Yochai Benkler, ‘Open Access and Information Commons’ in Francesco Parisi (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Private and Commercial Law (vol 2, Oxford University Press 2017).

  10. 10.

    The expansion of IP protection has characterized the development of the discipline affecting both the duration and scope of IP protection, as summarized, among others, by Richard Posner, ‘Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach’ (2005) 19 Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 72ff.

  11. 11.

    Eg Laura Murray, Tina Piper and Kirsty Robertson, Putting Intellectual Property in Its Place: Rights Discourses, Creative Labor, and the Everyday (Oxford University Press 2014); Jessica Silbey, The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators and Everyday Intellectual Property (Stanford University Press 2014).

  12. 12.

    Eg Peter Picht, ‘Standard-Essential Patents: Limiting Exclusivity for the Sake of Innovation’ in Josef Drexl and Anselm Kamperman Sanders (eds), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar 2019); Ansgar Ohly, ‘Free Riding on the Repute of Trade Marks: Does Protection Generate Innovation?’ in Josef Drexl and Anselm Kamperman Sanders (eds), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar 2019); Kevin Emerson Collins, ‘Patent Failure: A Tragedy of Property’ <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1156434> accessed 1 March 2020; James Bessen and Michael J Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton University Press 2008).

  13. 13.

    See below Sect. 3; Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, ‘Copyright as Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?’ (2011) Theoretical Inquiries into Law 12, 29.

  14. 14.

    Eg Robert Merges, ‘Economics of Intellectual Property Law’ in Francesco Parisi, The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Private and Commercial Law (vol 2, Oxford University Press 2017).

  15. 15.

    See Elizabeth Rosenblatt, ‘A Theory of IP’s Negative Space’ (2011) 34 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 317; Dreyfuss (n 9).

  16. 16.

    Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation (Oxford University Press 2012).

  17. 17.

    ibid 45.

  18. 18.

    Varada Balachandran, ‘Negative Spaces of Intellectual Property - A Cursory Glance’ (The IP Site, 31 March 2016) <http://blog.ciprnuals.in/?p=220> accessed 1 March 2020: ‘Productive infringement is an innovation that builds closely on its forbear’.

  19. 19.

    Raustiala and Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (n 16) 58.

  20. 20.

    ibid 7 (emphasis added).

  21. 21.

    See Schaffers and others (n 4) 431–432, 442: ‘[C]ities are increasingly assuming a critical role as drivers of innovation in areas such as health, inclusion, environment and business […] considered not only as the object of innovation but also as innovation ecosystems empowering the collective intelligence and co-creation capabilities of user/citizen communities for designing innovative living and working scenarios.’

  22. 22.

    As in the case of Robert Merton, ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’ (1942) 1 Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 115. Merton is cited as the precursory of the debate by Rebecca Eisenberg, ‘Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research’ (1987) 97 Yale Law Journal 177, 179 and by Dreyfuss (n 9) 1443–1444.

  23. 23.

    Described in the work of Robert Allen, ‘Collective Invention’ (1983) 4 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1.

  24. 24.

    Yochai Benkler, ‘Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm’ (2002) 112 Yale Law Journal 378–379; Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale University Press 2006).

  25. 25.

    Eg Pamela Morrison, John Roberts and Eric von Hippel, ‘Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market’ (2000) 46 Management Science 1513.

  26. 26.

    Dotan Oliar and Christopher Sprigman, ‘There’s No Free Laugh (Anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand-Up Comedy’ (2008) 94 Virginia Law Review 1787.

  27. 27.

    Cathay Smith, ‘Street Art: An Analysis under U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Intellectual Property’s Negative Space Theory’ (2013) 24 DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & IP Law 259; Enrico Bonadio, ‘Street Art, Graffiti and Copyright’ in Enrico Bonadio and Nicola Lucchi (eds), Non-Conventional Copyright: Do New and Atypical Works Deserve Protection? (Edward Elgar 2018).

  28. 28.

    Arul Scaria and Mathews George, ‘Copyright and Typefaces’ in Enrico Bonadio and Nicola Lucchi (eds), Non-Conventional Copyright: Do New and Atypical Works Deserve Protection? (Edward Elgar 2018); Raustiala and Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (n 16) 145–155.

  29. 29.

    Emmanuelle Fauchart and Eric von Hippel, ‘Norms-Based Intellectual Property Systems: The Case of French Chefs’ (2008) 19 Organization Science 187; Christopher Buccafusco, ‘On the Legal Consequences of Sauces: Should Thomas Keller’s Recipes Be Per Se Copyrightable?’ (2007) 24 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 1121.

  30. 30.

    Jacob Loshin, ‘Secrets Revealed: How Magicians Protect Intellectual Property Without Law’ in Christine Corcos (ed), Law and Magic: A Collection of Essays (Carolina Academic Press 2007) 123ff.

  31. 31.

    Kal Raustiala and Christopher Springman, ‘The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design’ (2006) 92 Virginia Law Review 1687.

  32. 32.

    Rebecca Tushnet, ‘Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law’ (1997) 17 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 651.

  33. 33.

    Tonya Evans, ‘Sampling, Looping and Mashing … Oh My! How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the Surface of Copyright Law’ (2011) 4 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 843; Mark Schultz, ‘Fear and Norms and Rock & Roll: What Jambands Can Teach Us About Persuading People to Obey Copyright Law’ (2006) 21 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 651.

  34. 34.

    Peter Mezei, ‘Copyright Protection of Sport Moves’ in Enrico Bonadio and Nicola Lucchi (eds), Non-Conventional Copyright: Do New and Atypical Works Deserve Protection? (Edward Elgar 2018); Scott Kieff, Robert Kramer and Robert Kunstadt, ‘It’s Your Turn, but It’s My Move: Intellectual Property Protection for Sports “Moves”’ (2009) 25 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 765, 766, 774–776; Raustiala and Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (n 16) 126–136.

  35. 35.

    Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research’ (1998) 280 Science 698.

  36. 36.

    Peter B Meyer, Episodes of Collective Invention (Bibliogov 2013).

  37. 37.

    Rosenblatt categorizes them in three areas, the third one covering products of uses that are exempted from IP infringement liability for they are covered by legislative exceptions. The category is not sector-specific and largely undefined, but for the inclusion of scholarly writing and medical techniques. See Rosenblatt (n 15) 335.

  38. 38.

    Eg fashion and furniture design, typesets, recipes, perfumes, business method, sport moves and raw data fall within this category.

  39. 39.

    As in the case, for instance, of programmers of open source software, academics, magicians, comedians, street art and tattoos artists.

  40. 40.

    Rosenblatt (n 15) 322.

  41. 41.

    See, inter alia, Thomas Eger and Marc Scheufen, The Economics of Open Access (Edward Elgar 2018) 10–11 highlighting how in academic and scientific production the drivers are scholars’ curiosity and the ‘recognition of priority of their research and the expected gain in reputation with their peers’. See also Daniela Simone, Copyright and Collective Authorship: Locating the Authors of Collaborative Works (Cambridge University Press 2019) 210–212: ‘Credit is highly valued because of the reputational benefits that it might bring. […] Scientific journals record much academic debate about which contributors in large collaborative projects deserve to be credited and the order in which they ought to be credited.’

  42. 42.

    The peer-production sustaining the free software movement: Wikipedia and fan fiction is based on such mechanisms. See Yochai Benkler, ‘Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic production’ (2004) 114 Yale Law Journal 273, 321-322; Tushnet (n 32).

  43. 43.

    Raustiala and Springman, ‘The Piracy Paradox’ (n 31) 1719-1729; Joost Poort, ‘Borderlines of Copyright Protection: An Economic Analysis’ in P Bernt Hugenholtz (ed), Copyright Reconstructed. Rethinking Copyright’s Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change (Wolters Kluwer 2018) 289–290.

  44. 44.

    See Dan Burk and Mark Lemley, ‘Policy Levers in Patent Law’ (2003) 89 Virginia Law Review 1575, 1586-1588.

  45. 45.

    See Collins (n 12); Bessen and Meurer (n 12).

  46. 46.

    Rosenblatt (n 15) 349.

  47. 47.

    Among the four features listed by Rosenblatt, this latter is highlighted in the literature with greatest emphasis, often in conjunction with a call for a forward-looking and inclusive approach to business. See Matthew David, Sharing: Crime Against Capitalism (Polity Press 2017) 83: ‘In the fully digital economy, the best way to survive is to innovate, rather than to cling on to yesterday’s success.’

  48. 48.

    Rosenblatt (n 15) 325.

  49. 49.

    See Henry Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business School Press 2003) 72–73.

  50. 50.

    See Benkler, ‘Coase’s Penguin’ (n 24) 375-376 identifying these features in modularity, heterogeneous granularity, and low-cost integration of the numerous contributions into a quality-controlled final product.

  51. 51.

    Tanda and De Marco (n 1) 2.

  52. 52.

    Similar observations can be found in Josef Drexl, ‘Designing Competitive Markets for Industrial Data – Between Propertization and Access’ (2016) Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No.16-13, 10 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862975> accessed 1 March 2020.

  53. 53.

    Parliament and Council Directive EU 2019/1024 of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information [2019] OJ L172/56. The importance of sharing and cooperation between the public and private sectors are well emphasized by the OECD, ‘Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being’ (2015) 402–408 <www.oecd.org/innovation/data-driven-innovation-9789264229358-en.htm> accessed 1 March 2020.

  54. 54.

    The European Commission proposed in Commission, ‘Building a European data economy’ (Communication) COM (2017) 9 final 13 the introduction of a data producer’s right to protect non-personal data generated within the EU from misappropriations by extra-EU companies. In the words of Guenther Oettinger, then heading DG CONNECT and thus leading the proposal, the economic importance of data was particularly visible in the automotive industry and for the development of self-driving automobiles, see Guenther Oettinger, ‘Wem gehören die Daten?’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (14 October 2016) 19. On the industry rejection and its underlying reasons see Drexl (n 52) 5 and Heiko Willems, ‘Trading in Data: An Industry Perspective’ in Sebastian Lohsse, Reiner Schulze and Dirk Staudenmayer (eds), Trading Data in the Digital Economy: Legal Concepts and Tools (Nomos 2017) 323.

  55. 55.

    As summarized in the European Commission, ‘Synopsis Report of the Public Consultation on Building a European Data Economy’ (European Comission) 4 <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2017-36/synopsis_report_-_data_economy_A0EFA8E0-AED3-1E29-C8DE049035581517_46646.pdf> accessed 1 March 2020.

  56. 56.

    ibid 6.

  57. 57.

    Nestor Duch-Brown, Bertin Martens and Frank Mueller-Langer, ‘The Economics of Ownership, Access and Trade in Digital Data’ (2017) JRC Digital Economy Working Paper 2017-01 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2914144> accessed 1 March 2020.

  58. 58.

    See P Bernt Hugenholtz, ‘Against Data Property’ in Hanns Ullrich, Peter Drahos and Gustavo Ghidini (eds), Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property (vol 3, Edward Elgar 2018) 48, noting how business models working with big data are constantly changing, and crystallizing entitlements in a property right when the object is a very risky policy option when the object of the right is such a moving target.

  59. 59.

    For instance, with the application of FRAND rules to ensure fair access and re-use of data corpora.

  60. 60.

    See European Commission, ‘Synopsis Report’ (n 55) 7.

  61. 61.

    See Drexl (n 52); Hugenholtz (n 58) 48.

  62. 62.

    ibid.

  63. 63.

    For a literature review and empirical assessment see Rob Kitchin and Gavin McArdle, ‘What Makes Big Data, Big Data? Exploring the Ontological Characteristics of 26 Datasets’ (2016) 3 Big Data and Society 1.

  64. 64.

    See, inter alia, Nadine Côrte-Real, Tiago Oliveira and Pedro Ruivo, ‘Assessing Business Value of Big Data Analytics in European Firms’ (2017) 70 Journal of Business Research 379; Philipp Hartmann and others, ‘Capturing Value From Big Data – A Taxonomy of Data-Driven Business Models Used by Start-up Firms’ (2016) 36 International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1382; Daniel Chen, David Preston and Morgan Swink, ‘How the Use of Big Data Analytics Affects Value Creation in Supply Chain Management’ (2016) 32 Journal of Management Information Systems 4.

  65. 65.

    Drexl (n 52) 15-16. On the three conceptual layers of big data see Herbert Zech, ‘Data as a Tradeable Commodity’ in Alberto De Franceschi (ed), European Contract Law and the Digital Single Market, Implications of the Digital Revolution (Intersentia 2017) 53–54.

  66. 66.

    As noted also by Josef Drexl and others, ‘Data Ownership and Access to Data – Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 16 August 2016 on the Current European Debate’ (2016) Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-10, 5–6 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2833165> accessed 1 March 2020.

  67. 67.

    European Commission, ‘Synopsis Report’ (n 55) 7.

  68. 68.

    Michelle Supper, ‘Why Open Standards are the Key to Truly Smart Cities’ (SmartCitiesWorld, 29 October 2018) <www.smartcitiesworld.net/opinions/opinions/why-open-standards-are-the-key-to-truly-smart-cities> accessed 1 March 2020.

  69. 69.

    ibid: ‘The issue of interoperability also extends beyond the city boundaries. What if the leaders in your city decide to install a proprietary technology stack that is incompatible with the systems in a neighboring city?’

  70. 70.

    Numerous pilot initiatives and consolidated best practices have developed both in big and medium-sized cities across the region. See Antonio Garrido-Marijuan, Yana Pargova and Cordelia Wilson, ‘The Making of a Smart City: Best Practices Across Europe’ (EU Smart Cities Information System 2017) <https://smartcities-infosystem.eu/library/making-smart-city-best-practices-across-europe> accessed 1 March 2020; Rudolf Giffinger and others, ‘Smart cities: Ranking of European Medium-size Cities’ (Europeansmartcities, 2007) <www.smart-cities.eu/> accessed 1 March 2020.

  71. 71.

    The policy plan being characterized by the goals of reduction of carbon emission and efficient use of energy resources. For an overview of the regulatory measures adopted so far, see European Commission, ‘2020 Climate & Energy Package’ (European Commission) <https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en> accessed 1 March 2020.

  72. 72.

    Eg the International Conference ‘Smart Mobility 2020: Innovative and Sustainable Urban Transport in Europe’ held in Tallinn on 22-23 November 2017 was organized with the support of the 2017 Estonian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, see <https://europa.eu/newsroom/events/smart-mobility-2020-innovative-and-sustainable-urban-transport-europe_en> accessed 1 March 2020; the European Commission has granted funds for several initiatives, among which are the Urban Innovative Actions Initiative, the EU Smart Cities Information System and the European Network of Living Labs. See respectively <www.uia-initiative.eu/en> accessed 1 March 2020, <https://smartcities-infosystem.eu/> accessed 1 March 2020, <https://enoll.org/> accessed 1 March 2020.

  73. 73.

    See Isabella Maschio, ‘European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities’ (European Commission, 19 August 2020) <https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/articles/european-innovation-partnership-smart-cities-and-communities> accessed 1 December 2019; see also <https://eu-smartcities.eu/> accessed 19 August 2020.

  74. 74.

    EIP-SCC, ‘Explore, Shape, Deal. General Assembly 2018 Summary Report’ (EIP-SCC 2018) 11–12 <https://eu-smartcities.eu/events/eip-scc-general-assembly-2018> accessed 1 March 2020.

  75. 75.

    ibid 12, 18: Among the main sources of EU funds available in the sector are the EU Horizon 2020 Lighthouse program, European Structural and Investment Funds, and the ‘sustainable infrastructure window’ under InvestEU.

  76. 76.

    It includes a matchmaking platform aimed at bringing projects and investors together. See <https://eu-smartcities.eu/> accessed 1 March 2020.

  77. 77.

    In the consultations carried out by the Commission in 2011, public transport and urban mobility actions resulted as the second most supported area of intervention for EU initiative. See European Commission, ‘Public Consultation on the Smart Cities and Communities Initiative’ (Public Consultation Report 2011) <https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/public_consultation_report.pdf> accessed 1 March 2020.

  78. 78.

    The most recent available data see the participation of 4,700 members from 31 countries and 370 commitments. See EIP-SCC, ‘6 European actions rolling out new, smarter and sustainable mobility solutions in European cities’ Webinar presentation, 5 December 2017. For more information see <https://eu-smartcities.eu/clusters/11/description> accessed 1 March 2020.

  79. 79.

    The subscription to the EIP-SCC database is open to everyone and the access to archived material (e.g. meeting reports, annual reports) is free.

  80. 80.

    Interview with Anna Domenech, EIP-SCC Lead Intelligent Mobility for Energy Transition and Section Manager Nissan Europe (Budapest, 15 January 2020) (on file with authors): ‘It depends a lot on who is answering the question [of incentive]: if you ask a city, it would tell you something very different from what a stakeholder in the automotive sector would tell you.’; interview with two members of Unit B4 Sustainable and Intelligent Transport at European Commission DG MOVE in charge of EIP-SCC and CIVITAS (Budapest, 10 January 2020) (on file with authors): ‘It depends on the type of stakeholder. […] There is a variety of possible incentives, they can be governmental, public-policy-oriented, or rather market-led.’

  81. 81.

    Interview with Peter Lee, former member EIP-SCC and Principal Consultant BSI Group (Budapest, 19 December 2019) (on file with authors); interview with Ricardo Vitorino, Smart Cities R&I Manager EIP-SCC Intelligent Mobility for Energy Transition (Budapest, 13 January 2020) (on file with authors): ‘Contribute to a smart and more sustainable society, improving the existing transportation options in smart cities and rewarding the most efficient and ecological alternatives.’

  82. 82.

    Interview with Valerio Siniscalco, Sharing Cities Consortium Partner EIP-SCC Lighthouse Project (Budapest, 8 January 2020) (on file with authors): ‘The generation of new economic opportunities, the possibility to open or access market segments.’; interview with Anna Domenech (n 80): ‘Obviously, returns on investments and market positioning remain important objectives for industrial players.’

  83. 83.

    EIP-SCC, ‘General Assembly 2018 Report’ (n 74) 8, 13: ‘In particular, banks did not accept as a guarantee the cash flow of the project, since they rely on the traditional business model, which guarantees the investment with the value of the building. […] difficulty to measure social and environmental benefits of the project in a quantitative and standardized way.’; EIP-SCC, ‘Towards a Joint Investment Programme for European Smart Cities: A Consultation Paper to Stimulate Action’ (EIP-SCC 2016) 2, 12, 17 <https://eu-smartcities.eu/sites/default/files/2018-06/EIP-SCC_TOWARDS%20A%20JOINT%20INVESTMENT-Paper.pdf> accessed 1 March 2020.

  84. 84.

    Interview with Anna Domenech (n 80) ‘Private sector stakeholders are also citizens, who like SUM projects because they will make their life easier […], we all want better cities, more sustainable, easier to live in, so another thing important in the sector is to keep the company staff motivated.’

  85. 85.

    See Table 2 Investors Engagement – types, motives and methods in EIP-SCC, ‘Consultation Paper’ (n 83) 17 listing, among others, the enhancement of city sustainability, efficiency of the public budget and optimization of risk management. See also interview with Graham Colclough, Chair Integrated Infrastructures and Processes Action Cluster EIP-SCC (Budapest, 16 December 2019) (on file with authors): ‘You see a blend of different incentives and motives that drive different business models in the sector.’

  86. 86.

    European Commission, ‘Smart Cities’ (European Commission) <https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en#european-innovation-partnership-on-smart-cities-and-communities> accessed 1 March 2020.

  87. 87.

    See EIP-SCC, ‘The Marketplace of the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities’ (EIP-SCC, 2020) <https://eu-smartcities.eu/> accessed 1 March 2020.

  88. 88.

    Nicos Komninos, ‘Intelligent Cities: Variable Geometries of Spatial Intelligence’ (2011) 3 Intelligent Buildings International 172.

  89. 89.

    See Anne Faber and Florian Matthes, ‘Crowdsourcing and Crowdinnovation’ in Anne Faber, Florian Matthes and Felix Michel (eds), Digital Mobility Platforms and Ecosystems: State of the Art Report (TUM 2016) 37; Omer Uludag, Stefan Hefele and Florian Matthes, ‘Platform and Ecosystem Governance’ in Anne Faber, Florian Matthes and Felix Michel (eds), Digital Mobility Platforms and Ecosystems: State of the Art Report (TUM 2016) 14.

  90. 90.

    Interview with Graham Colclough (n 85) sketching a taxonomy of relevant data (i.e. firewalled data, open data, commercial data, machine-to-machine data and social media data) and highlighting the problematic aspects of holistic approaches to them.

  91. 91.

    Interview with members of the Sustainable and Intelligent Transport at European Commission in charge of EIP-SCC and CIVITAS (n 80): ‘Exchange of good practices, communication and dissemination happen through workshops, regular meetings, conferences where we bring the actors together, cities and project developers.’ Interview with Peter Lee (n 81): ‘What is key is the willingness of all organizations to be a lot more involved, open and collaborative in the terms of how they operate.’ Interview with Valerio Siniscalco (n 82): ‘We attend almost monthly local and non-local meetings, workshops, conferences and other kind of gatherings with the purpose of sharing knowledge, experiences and best practices.’ Interview with Ricardo Vitorino (n 81): ‘Knowledge networks organizing workshops and think tanks, publishing white papers and organizing webinars.’

  92. 92.

    Living labs being repositories of data, know-how, software interfaces and even prototypes of hardware enabling the free use of such resources with the aim ‘to provide a useful third party laboratory environment to encourage innovation based on an open platform to support and provide new mobility concepts’, Uludag, Hefele and Matthes, ‘Platform and Ecosystem Governance’ (n 89). See also Schaffers and others (n 4) 433; Grazia Concilio and Francesco Molinari, ‘Living Labs and Urban Smartness: The Experimental Nature of Emerging Governance Models’ in Andrea Vesco and Francesco Ferrero (eds), Handbook of Research on Social, Economic, and Environmental Sustainability in the Development of Smart Cities (IGI Global 2015).

  93. 93.

    Interview with members of the Sustainable and Intelligent Transport at European Commission in charge of EIP-SCC and CIVITAS (n 80): ‘The pattern is decentralization, […] there is a connection among all of the layers [of information], like an octopus spreading around with its tentacles. And you have the trend of creating conferences, every city now wanting to create its own conference to create business partners, the European Commission, investors, funding agencies, etc. and we see more and more hubs created all over Europe.’

  94. 94.

    Interview with Anna Domenech (n 80): ‘All stakeholders are becoming more and more open to share information. Open innovation is now the trend and we are all quickly understanding the importance of sharing innovative information and that there is not so much risk as we perceived before. […] The amount of information that you keep for yourself is becoming ever smaller.’ Interview with Valerio Siniscalco (n 82): ‘Companies tend to have a high degree of disclosure on information related to smart mobility projects as part of their business strategy.’ Interview with Ricardo Vitorino (n 81): ‘Case studies about the successes and lessons learnt with general audience, KPIs [Key Performance Indicators] about the implementation to support next deployments and projects with the city/service provider and public authority, roadmap about the products and solutions with potential customers and end users [are typically disclosed].’

  95. 95.

    Interview with Anna Domenech (n 80): ‘People entering SUM collaborative projects do ask about IPRs.’ Interview with Ricardo Vitorino (n 81): ‘[Stakeholders are] highly interested [in IP protection], despite being one of the toughest area to learn insights. New players look for data about the result of projects from existing and past players, while keeping trade secrets and ensuring their management remains enclosed to protect their strategy.’

  96. 96.

    Interview with Graham Colclough (n 85): ‘People are not sufficiently informed about the financial value of what they own because it is complicated […] and most of the industries involved cannot understand public value and public good.’ Interview with Anna Domenech (n 80): ‘What is missing in the sector is a forecast of monetization of IPRs, we do not know how to sell solutions.’

  97. 97.

    Interview with Peter Lee (n 81): ‘A pragmatic thought is that the costs of securing IP might actually outweigh the revenue that would be generated from licensing IPRs. […] Even big universities that are partly set up with that in mind, to set up the IPRs, they sometimes struggle, so if a local authority hasn’t got a research university to work with, they are going to find it even more difficult to get their head around the issue and work out if it is really worth securing.’ Interview with Anna Domenech (n 80): ‘As we are mostly not developing our own technologies, but rather we suggest solutions based on a combination of existing technologies, we are not so much into investing in IPRs.’

  98. 98.

    Interview with Valerio Siniscalco (n 82): ‘Scale-up and replication are crucial for the diffusion of innovative smart cities experiences.’ Interview with Anna Domenech (n 80): ‘Replication is part of the sector and it makes sense. I am hesitant towards it only to the extent I see a difference between advanced cities, which rely on high level technologies and are pioneers in smart mobility projects, and less advanced cities, which face serious problems in finding the financial resources to implement such projects.’ Interview with members of the Sustainable and Intelligent Transport at European Commission in charge of EIP-SCC and CIVITAS (n 80): ‘It is our wish not to finance one idea for one city, but rather to achieve benefit for the EU as a whole. Replication and the follower city concept are key for us. […] If this concept is missing, there is no real European added value.’

  99. 99.

    EIP-SCC, ‘General Assembly 2018 Report’ (n 74) 16, 21; Jorge Nunez Ferrer and others, ‘The Making of a Smart City: Replication and Scale-up of Innovation in Europe’ (EU Smart Cities Information System 2018) <https://smartcities-infosystem.eu/library/publications> accessed 1 March 2020.

  100. 100.

    Han Vandevyvere and others, ‘Why May Replication (Not) Be Happening. Recommendation on EU R&I and Regulatory Policies’ (EU Smart Cities Information System 2018) <https://smartcities-infosystem.eu/library/publications> accessed 1 March 2020.

  101. 101.

    ibid; EIP-SCC, ‘General Assembly 2018 Report’ (n 74) 18.

  102. 102.

    EIP-SCC, ‘Consultation Paper’ (n 83) 12; interview with Graham Colclough (n 85); interview with Peter Lee (n 81).

  103. 103.

    ibid; EIP-SCC, ‘General Assembly 2018 Report’ (n 74) 8-10, 16: ‘The participating cities have committed to work together to deliver innovative solutions for one of the Integrated Infrastructure cluster initiatives. […] This is an important evidence point for aggregating demand, the application of standards, and the blending of funds from public and private sources.’ Focusing on the inclusive approach towards the SME community, see EIP-SCC, ‘Consultation Paper’ (n 83) 23-24; interview with Peter Lee (n 81): ‘For innovation it is a challenge: if the market doesn’t grasp the innovation quick enough, an innovation can die. […] So you do need these networks to sustain innovation and help reduce the risks.’

  104. 104.

    Benevolo, Dameri and D’Auria (n 2): ‘Knowledge city […] regards the policies aiming at enforcing and valuing data, information and knowledge available and produced in city, especially through its cultural institutions such as universities, research centres, theatres and libraries, but also produced and used by companies, innovative districts, technological parks.’ Aurelien Acquier and Valentina Carbone, ‘Sharing Economy and Social Innovation’ in Nestor M Davidson, Michèle Finck and John J Infranca (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of the Sharing Economy (Cambridge University Press 2018) 53.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

    Giulia Priora & Caterina Sganga

Authors
  1. Giulia Priora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caterina Sganga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulia Priora .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MPI for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Michèle Finck , Matthias Lamping , Valentina Moscon  & Heiko Richter , ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Priora, G., Sganga, C. (2020). Smart Urban Mobility: A Positive or Negative IP Space? A Case Study to Test the Role of IP in Fostering Digital Data-Driven Innovation. In: Finck, M., Lamping, M., Moscon, V., Richter, H. (eds) Smart Urban Mobility. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 29. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61920-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61920-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-61919-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-61920-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation