Immaterialgüterrecht und »Schlüsselgegenstände« Zur schutzrechtsübergreifenden Behandlung von Gegenständen mit erhöhter Relevanz für die Allgemeinheit

Are there items that should be exempted from intellectual property protection because of the general public's interest in their free availability? This question is far from new as it concerns one of the core issues of intellectual property protection: The balancing of the opposing interests of right-holders on the one hand and the general public on the other. Up to now and in order to take account of the special circumstances of each case answers were sought in area-specific rules within the respective patent, copyright or design legislation. This has, for example, led to the conviction that neither should algorithms and business methods be protected by patents nor musical chords or twelve-tone music be copyrighted. So far, however, no analysis has been carried out to address the question in an overarching and comprehensive way that is not limited to specific intellectual property rights. Assuming that intellectual property rights perform the function of promoting innovation and creation, it remains unanswered how items of property, whose relevance to the general public reaches a level where protecting these by granting unlimited intellectual property rights would have to be deemed dysfunctional, should be treated. Such an analysis would transcend the usual debate on appropriately-tailored subject-matter, scope and term of protection and identify an area in which intellectual property protection confronts the limits flowing from its very raison d'être. It is the aim of this paper to carry out this over-arching analysis and to start filling what we perceive to be a gap in scholarly research. We begin by coining the term of »key items« (Schlüsselgegenstände), being items of property that are indispensable for any further innovative, creative or economic activity. Diverse problems, such as »patent ambushing«, »building block«-issues in basic research, issues related to spare parts or excessively priced academic journals, may all appropriately be dealt with in terms of this new approach. According to their respective subject-matter, at least three categories of key items can be identified: rule-related key items, science-related key items and technical or aesthetical key items. In the course of an extensive analysis of the effects and functions that may be attributed to intellectual property rights, we purport to show that the protection of key items causes a number of substantial problems. Even though they strongly resemble one another, each category of key items has its own set of problems. The appropriate legal remedy therefore needs to be specific in nature. We conclude that certain types of rule-related key items (namely »de facto« standards and standards required by law) and science-related key items are to be excluded from protection altogether. Technical or aesthetical key items are properly treated like »de facto« standards. Consequently, they are to be excluded from protection as well. For other types of rule-related key items (namely »de iure« standards established by standard-setting organisations and privately syndicated standards), internal limitations to the intellectual property right are to be formulated that allow third parties to access the key item in exchange for adequate remuneration. Gibt es Gegenstände, an deren freien Verfügbarkeit die Allgemeinheit ein so großes Interesse hat, dass sie von vornherein von jeglichem Immaterialgüterschutz ausgenommen werden sollten? Diese Frage ist alles andere als neu, betrifft sie doch eines der zentralen, aber altbekannten Grundprobleme jedes Immaterialgüterrechts – die Abwägung zwischen den Interessen der Rechteinhaber einerseits und denjenigen der Allgemeinheit andererseits. Die Antwort darauf ist, um den Besonderheiten des Einzelfalls bestmöglich Rechnung zu tragen, bislang ganz überwiegend in schutzrechtsspezifischen Lösungen gesucht worden. So ist man beispielsweise zu der Erkenntnis gelangt, dass Algorithmen und Geschäftsmodelle nicht durc