Search results

Creativity and innovation within the European Union are part of a harmonized system of protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); the latter include legal tools such as industrial property rights and copyright and related rights. The fundamental principles of the internal market (free movement of goods and services and free competition) are based in particular on the harmonization of IPRs at the European level. The protection of intellectual property is subject to a number of international conventions, the supervision of which is largely up to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To fulfil its obligations in the area, the European Union has created the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), in charge of the registration of European trademarks and European designs. The Commission is currently engaged in the effective implementation of a common EU patent system, less costly and more effective from a legal point of view, able to ensure the competitiveness of European business and enterprises. Finally, the protection of IPRs also implies that they must be safeguarded against piracy, illegal trade and counterfeiting. The Internet and digital technologies play a pivotal role in this context, since they are transforming the world we live in, with reference to all the aspects of life and all sectors of activity. EU must embrace this digital revolution and open new digital opportunities for citizens and business, by leveraging the strength of the EU single market. The existence of barriers to online activities prevents citizens from taking advantage of a wider range of goods and services. Therefore companies and public administrations cannot reap the benefits of digital tools. The final scope of the Digital Single Market (DSM) aims at breaking down regulatory barriers in order to establish a single market, in place of the partially harmonized 28 national markets now existing. This research report is aimed at identifying and analysing the ...

This article is aimed at describing the most relevant issues around computerised processing of health data with specific reference to telemedicine modules within the European Union. The regulatory framework in this area is complex and varied, and often disorienting. Therefore, the application and reconstructive approach of this work tries to fill a gap in the literature by providing a first systematisation of the topic. The main issues of the digitisation of health data are taken into account, with particular attention to telemedicine and so-called patient empowerment. There is a specific focus on the analysis of the application scenarios and legal requirements, in terms of privacy and security, of a telemedicine service. The European legal framework, and specifically the legal frameworks of certain selected countries (Germany, France, Austria and Italy), is presented. Ultimately, the minimum requirements to be implemented in a telemedicine scenario, along with possible technical solutions compliant with these requirements, are discussed and presented ; Trento LawTech Research Paper nr. 23

The identification of economic rights relates to the economic context in general (also referred to as 'economic phenomenon') on the one hand and to citizens' liberties on the other. Deliverable 5.1 is aimed at uncovering a definition of the concept 'economic rights', thereby identifying their specific nature. In each country economic rights deal with the regulation of the factors of production (labour and capital) and with limitations to private economic activities (business regulation), connected with their exploitation. More generally economic rights are concerned with property ownership and economic initiative. From these two main categories each legal system developed a broader list of rights connected to the economic phenomenon, focusing on market regulation, the protection of competition, and the interests linked to business (economic free initiative). Common trends in the historical evolution of the regulation of property and economic initiative have been observed across the Member States. From the industrial revolution to the more recent developments in the economies of the Member States, the need to protect citizens' social and economic interests can be characterized by different legal solutions, which are first described from a broader perspective (sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1) before turning to the different national experiences (2.3, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2). These trends have determined to what extent in the respective Member States the freedom of initiative, social protection within the economic production process and the post-industrial economy are, irrespective of the differences between the various legal systems, regulated in a similar fashion, i.e. by means of codification, through the incorporation in the constitution or by means of legislation; however, legal tradition and political background have informed the unique and country-specific enforcement of these rights within the Member States.

The secondary processing of personal health data for scientific research in the medical field is fundamental for fostering innovation and growing knowledge that improves individual and public health. Personal health data that are primarily processed for healthcare purposes by healthcare providers may be secondarily used by researchers for scientific purposes. However, the data controller shall assess the applicable grounds and conditions and then comply with the data protection framework to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms. In this paper we analyse the legal requirements laid down on these aspects by the General Data Protection Regulation at the European Union level, which harmonises the general rules, and by two national implementations at the Member State level, Italy and France, which further regulate with specific conditions. After this comparative investigation, we propose a proactive, legal-technical e-health solution that complies with the rules and principles of the legal frameworks and empowers the individual's control over personal health data while promoting medical research. To this end, the data protection by design concept plays a central role, and an interdisciplinary approach is fundamental in combining legal and technical perspectives. ; This paper has also been published in open access in the issue 1/2021 of the Journal Opinio Iuris in Comparatione. Paolo Guarda authored paragraphs 2 and 3. Giorgia Bincoletto authored paragraphs 4 and 5. They co-authored paragraphs 1 and 6. All links to websites were confirmed as of 11 November 2021. They grate-fully acknowledge their debt to the "eHealth" Research Units within Fondazione Bruno Kessler, to the Competence Center on Digital Health "TrentinoSalute4.0" and "Laboratorio congiunto con la Facoltà di Giurisprudenza – Università di Trento" for the support received for our research. They would like to thank Lo-renzo Gios for his valuable contributions and feedback. All errors remain their own.

Open Access' main goal is not the subversion of publishers' role as driving actors in an oligopolistic market characterized by reduced competition and higher prices. OA's main function is to be found somewhere else, namely in the ability to subvert the power to control science's governance and its future directions (Open Science), a power that is more often found within the academic institutions rather than outside. By decentralizing and opening-up not just the way in which scholarship is published but also the way in which it is assessed, OA removes the barriers that helped turn science into an intellectual oligopoly even before an economic one. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Open Access is a key enabler of Open Science, which in turn will lead to a more Open Society. Furthermore, the paper argues that while legislative interventions play an important role in the top-down regulation of Open Access, legislators currently lack an informed and systematic vision on the role of Open Access in science and society. In this historical phase, other complementary forms of intervention (bottom-up) appear much more "informed" and effective. This paper, which intends to set the stage for future research, identifies a few pieces of the puzzle: the relationship between formal and informal norms in the field of Open Science and how this impact on intellectual property rights, the protection of personal data, the assessment of science and the technology employed for the communication of science.