ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Erhvervs-, Vækst- og Eksportudvalget 2016-17
ERU Alm.del Bilag 182
Offentligt

Contribution ID: 4cdfedb0-63a5-456a-afc0-b4f48560de05

Date: 25/04/2017 14:11:38

BUILDING THE EUROPEAN DATA

ECONOMY

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

INTRODUCTION

Data has become an essential resource for economic growth, job creation and societal progress.

Data analysis facilitates better decision-making, innovation and the prediction of future events.

Europe aims to exploit this potential without infringing the rights and freedoms of people or damaging

economic investments made into generating data. Within this context, the Commission aims to foster

an efficient, competitive single market for data services including cloud-based ones. It needs to

identify the legal, economic, and regulatory challenges, and to launch a discussion with stakeholders

on future action.

On 10 January 2017, the Commission adopted the "Building the European Data Economy" package

consisting of a

Communication

and a

Staff Working Document

. These policy documents give an

overview of issues at stake, and of the context of this consultation. Respondents are invited to read

them prior to completing the questionnaire.

Purpose

The public consultation will help shape the future policy agenda on the European data economy. It

will feed into a possible Commission's initiative in 2017 on Building the European Data Economy.

The objective of the consultation is to collect information on:

whether and how local or national data localisation restrictions inhibit the free flow of data in

Europe

whether and to what extent digital non-personal machine-generated data are traded and

exchanged

the nature and magnitude of any barriers to accessing such data

ways of tackling those barriers

emerging Internet of Things and robotics liability challenges

practices and issues relating to data portability, interoperability and standards

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Context

The "Building the European Data Economy" package addresses restrictions on the free flow of data,

including legal barriers on the location of data for storage and/or processing purposes, and a series

of emerging issues relating to data such as ownership, access, reuse, portability and liability.

While the questions on liability issues in this consultation are addressed in a data economy context,

separate consultation

separate consultation on the overall evaluation of the application of the

Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC)

is being launched.

This consultation does not cover any issues related to personal data protection. These are

extensively regulated elsewhere, namely in the

new EU data protection rules

, as well as through the

review of the ePrivacy Directive

. Issues of access to and re-use of public sector information are

excluded from this consultation because they will be tackled under the upcoming review of the

Directive on the re-use of public sector information (2003/98/EC).

The Commission has already engaged in an extensive dialogue on the data economy with

stakeholders, in the form of sector-specific (e.g. manufacturing and financial sectors) and cross-

sector round-tables,

workshops

conferences

, bilateral meetings including targeted consultations of

the Member States on data economy topics, and a

public consultation

in which the data economy

was one of a broader range of topics.

Targeted respondents

This consultation targets:

Businesses of all sizes

Manufacturers and users of connected devices

Operators and users of online platforms

Data brokers

Businesses commercialising data-based products and services

Public authorities

Non-governmental organisations

Researcher and research organisations

Consumers

As data collected by sensors are used in many areas, this consultation targets all sectors. Some of

the sectors likely to be concerned are manufacturing, energy, automotive, health, consumer-facing

commerce, Internet of Things (IoT), etc.

Consultation period

10 January – 26 April 2017

Replies received after the closing date will not be considered.

How to respond

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

You can reply in any EU language, even to the online English version of the questionnaire. The

questionnaire in all of the other EU languages will be available as from 1 February 2017.

Only responses received through the online questionnaire will be considered for analysis.

Questionnaires sent by e-mail or on paper will not be analysed except those due to accessibility

needs of persons with disabilities (see below).

All questions and sections are optional. You can pause any time and continue later. You can

download your contribution once you have submitted your answers.

Given the volume of this consultation, you can download

a PDF version

before responding to the

survey online. The PDF version includes all possible questions. When you fill the survey in online,

you will not see all of the questions; only those applicable to your chosen respondent category and to

other choices made when you answer previous questions.

The questionnaire is divided between 4 sections:

1. Localisation of data for storage and / or processing purposes

2. Access to and re-use of non-personal data

3. Liability

4. Portability of non-personal data, interoperability and standards

While you may want to contribute to the entire questionnaire, it is also possible for you to contribute

only to the sections (s) that is / are relevant to you or your organisation.

Accessibility for persons with disabilities

We accept questionnaires by e-mail or by post from people with disabilities and their representative

organisations.

Please send either e-mail with your reply attached as Word, PDF or ODF document

to [email protected]

or write to us at:

European Commission

DG Communication Networks, Content & Technology

Unit G1 – Data Policy and Innovation

Euroforum Building

10 rue Robert Stumper

L-2557 Luxembourg

Luxembourg

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Transparency

In the survey you will be asked whether you are responding as an individual or representing the

views of an organisation. We ask responding organisations to register in the Transparency Register.

We publish the submissions of non-registered organisations separately from those of registered ones.

Replies & next steps

We shall publish all contributions to the consultation unless non-publication is specifically requested

in the 'About you' section of the questionnaire.

A short summary of the consultation results will be published on this page 1 month after the

consultation closes. We shall issue a report with the qualitative analysis of the contributions in due

course.

In case your response includes confidential data please provide a non-confidential version. Please

read the Specific Privacy Statement below on how we deal with your personal data and contribution.

Protection of personal data & privacy statement

Protection of personal data

Specific privacy statement

Contact

[email protected]

About you

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

My contribution (Note that, whatever option chosen, your answers may be subject to a request for

public access to documents under Regulation (EC) N°1049/2001):

can be published with my personal information

(I consent to the publication of all information in

my contribution in whole or in part including my name or my organisation's name, and I declare that

nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that

would prevent publication.)

can be published provided that I remain anonymous

(I consent to the publication of any

information in my contribution in whole or in part (which may include quotes or opinions I express)

provided that it is done anonymously. I declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would

infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent the publication.)

You are replying as:

an individual in your personal capacity

as a self-employed individual

on behalf of a business/ organisation

First Name

Jens

Last Name

Rasmussen

e-mail address

[email protected]

Name of your organisation

Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs on behalf of the

Danish Government.

Website of your organisation

http://em.dk/english

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Contact details of your organisation

Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs

Slotsholmsgade 10-12

DK-1216 Copenhagen K

Please indicate the place(s) of operation of your business/organisation.

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Ireland

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Other

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Please indicate the sector/s in which your business/organisation mainly operates:

Manufacturing and processing

IT services, including app/software developers

Agriculture and Food

Health and Care

Energy and utilities

Automotive and Transport

Financial services/banking/insurance

Retail/electronic commerce

Wholesale trade

Electronic communications

Media, communication, entertainment

Education

Public sector

Research

Other

Which (if any) of these statements apply to you (it is possible to answer yes to several of these

statements)?

My organisation has significant business in the production and market commercialisation of sensor-

equipped machines, tools, devices

My organisation has significant business in internet-based platforms that also aim at generating data

through the usage of such platforms by the various users

My organisation is or is interested in accessing data held by an organisation which has significant

business in the production and market commercialisation of sensor-equipped machines, tools,

devices

My organisation is or is interested in accessing data held by an organisation which has significant

business in internet-based platforms that also aim at generating data through the usage of such

platforms by the various users

My organisation is an SME and/or a start-up

Is your organisation included in the Transparency Register?

If your organisation is not registered, we invite you to register

here

, although it is not compulsory to be

registered to reply to this consultation. See

Why a transparency register

Yes

Not applicable

1. Localisation of data for storage and/or processing purposes

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

The main objective of this part of the questionnaire is to get detailed insights into the extent, nature

and impacts of data localisation restrictions within the EU and what could constitute limited, justified

grounds for such restrictions without unduly jeopardising the free movement of data within the EU

(except for restrictions to the free movement of personal data for reasons connected with the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. The Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establish

the free flow of personal data within the EU and set out the rules relating to that free movement).

Another important aspect is to find out to what extent businesses store or process data in multiple

geographical locations within the EU and what are the reasons for this multiple location and,

respectively, local storage or processing. The Commission also seeks respondents' views on the

perceived impacts of the removal of data localisation restrictions within the EU. The Commission

welcomes replies particularly from businesses, including SMEs, and public sector organisations.

Which of these statements apply to you in relation to data storage or processing?

My organisation is a data service provider

My organisation operates its own data infrastructure without using third-party services

My organisation is a user of third-party data services

My organisation is a scientific research organisation

None of the above

I don't know

Do you know about legislation or administrative rules or guidelines (including those adopted in the

context of public procurement) requiring to store or process data in your or other EU countries (please

see part 2 of the Staff Working Document linked to on the consultation webpage for the summary of

data localisation restrictions identified so far)?

Yes

For your own organisation's purposes, do you store or process your data in multiple locations within the

EU?

Yes

When providing IT-related services (e.g. cloud, applications, software, infrastructure, hosting, Over-The-

Top, etc.), have your customers demanded that their data is stored or processed locally (in the same

country as their relevant business establishment)?

Yes

I don't know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

In your opinion, should data localisation restrictions be removed within the EU?

Yes

I don't know

In your opinion, what grounds would justify keeping data localisation restrictions within the EU?

Public security

Law enforcement needs

Public policy (such as immediate availability of data for supervisory authorities)

Public health (please note that patient data may already be covered by a free movement provision

under the General Data Protection Regulation)

Other

If you answered yes, how would the removal of the localisation restrictions be beneficial to your

business or organisation?

Faster start-up or scale-up of business

Cost reduction

Accessing more performant or secure technologies

Entering new Member States market(s)

Expanding sales to foreign market(s)

Developing new products/services

Other

Please describe

1000 character(s) maximum

Removing localisation requirements would encourage digital trade at all

levels and provide European business and users with better access to and more

services from new markets. It would boost competitiveness by lowering cost

not least for SME’s that have fewer resources to comply with localization

restriction across member states. Economies of scale would encourage

development and research in data-driven technologies and services. Finally,

removing obsolete data localisation restrictions would have a positive

environmental effect, if business could move data storage from local servers

to the cloud and benefit from more energy efficient data centres

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

What kind of action at EU level do you consider appropriate to address the restrictions?

The EU should not address the issue

A legislative instrument

Guidance on data storage / processing within the EU

Increasing the transparency of restrictions

Other

I don't know

2. Access to and re-use of non-personal data

This part of the questionnaire aims to understand the data trading practices of businesses, and how

all businesses, in particular SMEs, and other stakeholders access and trade non-personal data, and

what are the perceived barriers to such trading and re-use of such data. The Commission seeks the

views of businesses and other respondents on ways to enhance access to and re-use of data and

data trading in Europe today.

2.1. Accessing data

This section is addressed to businesses and organisations of any size, and especially SMEs and

start-ups which are seeking access to non-personal or anonymised data for running their businesses

or developing new businesses. For consumer access issues, please see section 4.1 on data

portability for non-personal. The aim is to find out whether and to what extent businesses and

organisations have access to the data they need to develop or conduct their tasks, and furthermore

to find out what role existing legislation plays in today's data markets, and whether there is a need to

revise or introduce legislation to support the European data economy.

Do you currently depend to a significant extent on data resources that you acquire from others (for

products or services you offer, for your internal business processes)?

Yes

Have you had difficulties in acquiring data from other business actors (i.e. limited or no access to the

data) or have you been exposed to business practices that you consider unfair with respect to access

to such data?

Yes

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

When acquiring data from other economic operators or when negotiating such acquisition: To what

extent do you consider to be in a situation of equal bargaining power when negotiating data usage

licences?

To a great extent

To some extent

To a minor extent

Not at all

I don't know

When acquiring data from other economic operators or when negotiating such acquisition: How often do

you consider having been exposed to a situation that in your view would amount to an abuse of

dominant position (as defined in competition law)?

Never

Rarely

A number of times

Often

I don't know

Does current competition law and its enforcement mechanisms sufficiently address potentially anti-

competitive behaviour of companies holding or using data?

To a great extent

To some extent

To a minor extent

I don't know

Have you entered contracts in which certain data was defined as a trade secret?

Yes

2.2. Holding and supplying data

This section is addressed mostly to businesses that hold non-personal or anonymised data not

subject to significant data processing ("raw" data), in particular data collected by sensors embedded

in machines, tools and/or devices and who are in a position to share them. The aim is to get more

information about data licensing practices.

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Do you believe existing EU legislation sufficiently protects investments made into data collection by

sensors embedded in machines, tools and/or devices?

Yes

Only in some scenarios

I don't know

If you/your organisation hold/s raw data or data sets, do you license its usage to others?

No / to a minor extent

Only to sub-contractors that perform tasks closely related to the organisation's business processes

Only to companies within an economic group (e.g. parent and subsidiaries in a corporate group

/holding; affiliate, etc.)

Only within IT innovation environments, collaborating with other companies on concrete projects

Yes, to a wider range of players based on paying licences

My company makes certain datasets accessible as open data (accessible online, e.g. through a web

API), licensing conditions allow many re-use options and re-use is free of charge, at least for non-

commercial re-use of the data

Other

Are you including the value of at least some of the data you hold as a business asset in your balance

sheets?

Yes

Please explain why.

This is not required by the applicable accounting/financing reporting standards

I am not sure how to measure the value of the data I have or do consider that this would prove difficult

Considerations of commercial strategy

I have not given this a thought

Other

2.3. Possible solutions

Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 are directed at all respondents, including consumers and businesses.

Section 2.3.2 is directed at businesses that deal with data collected by sensors embedded in

machines, tools and/or devices. The aim is to receive input on what a possible future EU framework

should look like to support a thriving, diverse and innovative European data economy.

2.3.1. General objectives for a future EU framework for data access

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

To what extent do you agree with the following statements (1=not at all,2=to a minor extent, 3=neutral/I

don't know, 4=to some extent, 5=to a great extent):

Trading of non-

personal machine-

generated data

should be

enabled to a

greater extent

than it is today.

The sharing of

non-personal

machine-

generated data

should be

facilitated and

incentivised.

Investments

made into data

collection

capabilities and

data assets

should be

protected.

Sensitive

business and

confidential data

should always be

safeguarded.

Lock-in effects in

the data market

should be

minimised,

especially for

SMEs and start-

ups.

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

2.3.2. Access for public sector bodies and scientific research

Could you agree to an obligation to license the use of (non-personal) data you hold for any of the

following purposes (subject to conditions)?

For the establishment of statistics by public statistical offices

For government agencies for the prevention of public health or other specified risks

For government agencies in order to address other societal challenges (e.g. improving urban

planning, manage supply of energy)

For scientific research that is funded from public resources

Other

I would not agree to such an obligation for any purpose

Please specify

1000 character(s) maximum

A thorough analysis should be carried taking into account the benefits for

society on the one hand and the burdens on the companies on the other.

Could such access be given at no cost or only the cost related to making the data available?

Yes

Do you consider there should be action at EU level to address access to such data for the entities

mentioned in the previous question (the establishment of statistics by public statistical offices,

government agencies for the prevention of public health or other specified risks, government agencies

in order to address other societal challenges (e.g. improving urban planning, manage supply of

energy), scientific research that is funded from public resources)?

The EU should not address the issue

Yes, but only voluntary measures (e.g. industry self-regulation)

Yes, through legislative measures (for a scope to be defined)

I don't know

2.3.3. Access for other commercial entities

The following questions ask for an assessment of a number of potential measures that might help to

make more data held by one commercial entity available for re-use by another commercial entity.

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if the

Commission would issue guidance on how access, use and re-use of data should be addressed in

contracts (data usage licences) – based on existing legislation (in particular the Trade Secrets

Protection Directive, copyright legislation and the Database Directive)?

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

It is our experience that uncertainties and complexities regarding the

legislative framework can hinder the development of new innovative data

driven business models. This is especially the case in relation to who has

the right to use data that is already publicly available on the internet.

Furthermore, poor conditions for portability of data often cause a barrier

for consumers in changing service providers – especially in complex markets.

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

Further guidance and clarity on e.g. the rights to use publicly available

data would enable companies to better take legal issues into consideration

when developing their business models – hereby avoiding that their entire

business model in the end are deemed illegal. The Danish government sees

economic potential in giving consumers easy access to their own data

(including consumption data) in a format that makes it easy for them to

release to a third party – e.g. a broker. Thus, this would possibly increase

competition in complex markets that have traditionally lacked competition

pressure from consumers.

Would you agree with the following statement: The optimal solution for making data collected by

sensors embedded in machines, tools and/or devices available for re-use is to leave it entirely to the

parties to decide (by contract) who should have the right to license the usage of these data, how and

to whom.

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

The point of departure should be that it is up to the parties themselves to

decide the content of the licenses. However, it should be analyzed whether

the current regulation is fit to address possible market failures in the form

of e.g. unreasonable contract terms. Furthermore, considerations should also

be made on the ability for consumers to access their own data in a format

that makes it easy for them to recognize their consumption pattern and to

find alternative providers and products. The Danish Government especially

sees potential in the possibility for consumers to give data access to new,

innovative digital platforms and digital brokers that can find the products

and services that best fit their needs.

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if more

data holders used Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to facilitate access to the data they hold,

and these APIs were designed and documented in a way easy to use by third party application

developers.

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if

legislation would define a set of (cross-sector or sector-specific) non-mandatory contract rules for B2B

contracts, possibly coupled with an unfairness control in B2B contractual relationships) for allocating

rights to access, use and re-use data collected by sensors embedded in machines, tools and/or

devices were defined.

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

Standard contract terms might be useful – especially for SME's that do not

have the needed legal resources. However, it is essential that the standard

contract terms are voluntary and drafted in close collaboration with

stakeholders. Furthermore, considerations should also be made on the ability

for consumers to access their own data in a format that makes it easy for

them to recognize their consumption pattern and to find alternative providers

and products. The Danish Government especially sees potential in the

possibility for consumers to give data access to new, innovative digital

platforms and digital brokers that can find the products and services that

best fit their needs

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if a set of

recommended standard contract terms were to be drafted in close collaboration with stakeholders.

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

Standard contract terms might be useful – especially for SMEs that do not

have the needed legal resources. However, it is essential that the standard

contract terms are voluntary and drafted in close collaboration with

stakeholders. Developing standard contract terms may also help to identify

key obstacles that need more analysis or clarification.

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if a

company holding data which it protects through technical means against illicit misappropriation had

civil law remedies against such misappropriation (e.g. the right to seek injunctions, market exclusion,

or to claim damages).

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

Yes, more data would become available for re-use. But the positive or

negative implications of this are difficult to assess. More data available

for re-use may increase competition but limit the incentives to innovate and

invest in big data, because benefits would not be restricted to the investor

(s). The existing legislative framework should be analyzed thoroughly before

introducing new remedies.

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Would you agree with the following statement: More data collected by sensors embedded in machines,

tools and/or devices would become available for re-use if both the owner or user of the machine, tool

or device and the manufacturer share the right to license the use of such data.

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

An obligation to share the right to license such data may entail restrictions

and limit innovation in some cases. Thus, the existing legislative framework

should be analyzed thoroughly before introducing new legislation.

In this

context, it is an objective that the potential to analyse and reuse non-

personal data for new innovative business models should not be unreasonable

restricted.

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if the

companies active in the production and market commercialisation of sensor-equipped machines, tools

or devices were awarded an exclusive right to license the use of the data collected by the sensors

embedded in such machines, tools and/or devices (a sort of sui generis intellectual property right).

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

Again, the existing legislative framework should be analyzed thoroughly

before introducing new legislation. In general, one should be cautious

introducing a new sui generis intellectual property right before fully

understanding the implications it will have on the access to data.

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

Would you agree with the following statement: More data would become available for re-use if the

persons or entities that operate sensor-equipped machines, tools or devices at their own economic risk

("data producer") were awarded an exclusive right to license the use of the data collected by these

machines, tools or devices (a sort of sui generis intellectual property right), as a result of the data

producer's operation, to any party it wishes (subject to legitimate data usage exceptions for e.g.

manufacturers of the machines, tools or devices).

Yes

Sometimes

I don't know

Please explain.

1000 character(s) maximum

Again, the existing legislative framework should be analyzed thoroughly

before introducing new legislation. In general, one should be cautious

introducing a new sui generis intellectual property right before fully

understanding the implications it will have on the access to data.

What impacts (if any, including economic) on competition and innovation would you expect from the

solution described in the previous question?

1000 character(s) maximum

To what extent would you agree to an obligation to license for the re-use of data generated by

machines, tools or devices that you have commercialised under fair, reasonable and non-

discriminatory (FRAND) terms?

To a large extent

To some extent

To a minor extent

Not at all

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

To what extent would you agree to an obligation to license for the re-use of data generated in the

context of your online platform through its users under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory

(FRAND) terms?

To a large extent

To some extent

To a minor extent

Not at all

3. Liability

This part of the questionnaire aims to understand the level of awareness, as well as the respondents'

experiences and issues related to liability for products and services coming out of Internet of Things

(IoT) technologies and autonomous systems. The questions are also meant to gather evidence for a

proper assessment of the adequacy of the

Product Liability Directive (85/374/CEE)

to respond to IoT

and robotics liability challenges. The Commission seeks the views of producers and users of IoT

technologies and autonomous systems in this section.

3.1. Extra-contractual liabilities: IoT and robotics products and services

Questions for producers/suppliers/manufacturers

As a producer/supplier: please indicate which new IoT and/or robotics technological developments you

deal with.

Non-embedded software/mobile apps

Advanced and new sensor equipment

Smart medical devices

Robots, e.g. for care, surgery, industrial robots, other

Automated cars

Smart objects, i.e. thermostats, fridges, watches, cars

Drones

Other

As producer of IoT/robotics devices, did you ever experience problems in not knowing in which category

(product/service) to classify the device in order to comply with a specific liability regime on provision of

services or manufacturing of products?

Yes, to a significant extent

Yes, to a moderate extent

No, I never experienced this problem

I don't know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Do you, as a producer, take into account the possibility of being held liable for potential damages when

pricing IoT/robotics devices?

Yes

Have you ever been held liable for damage caused by your IoT/robotics defective device?

Yes

I don't know

As a producer, do you have a specific insurance for IoT/robotics products to cover your liability in case

of compensation?

Yes

I don't know

Questions for consumers/end-users

As a consumer, have you suffered damage due to a defective IoT/robotics device?

Yes

As a consumer/user have you ever experienced a software security problem (e.g. failure of the software,

cyber-attack) when using your IoT/robotics product?

Yes

Yes, but I do not know the exactly problem or cause.

As a consumer/user of an IoT/robotics device, how easy it is to update the software of your device?

Easy

I can manage

It is too inconvenient, complex, difficult

My device is automatically updated/patched by the manufacturer or developer

I do not have to update it

Other

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

As a consumer, what (if anything) makes you reluctant to buy IoT/robotics products or services?

They are technologically too complicated to use

Price

I am not interested

Privacy risks

Software security problems, Cyber security risks

Legal uncertainty: I didn't know whether I would receive a compensation in case of damage

In case of damage, it is difficult to understand where the cause of damage lies

No reluctance at all

Other

Do you think IoT/robotics products and services should be equipped with an event data recorder to track

what the device was doing when the damage occurred?

Yes

I don't know

In the EU country where you live, are there specific rules on liability for damage caused by the new

technological developments, such as IoT/robotics products? If you are aware of such rules, please

indicate them.

1500 character(s) maximum

In your opinion, who should bear the liability in case of damages caused by defects or malfunctioning of

a smart device which combines tangible goods (a car), digital goods (an app) and services (e.g data

services)?

The producer of the physical device

The provider of the digital good (software and/or app)

The producer of the physical device jointly with the provider of the digital good (software and/or app)

The attribution of liability is better dealt through contracts on a case-by-case basis

To be established on a case-by-case basis based on the best positioned to avoid risks

To be established on a case-by-case basis based on the entity generating the highest risks

Other

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

As end-user (consumer/company) active in the data economy, have you directly experienced/entered

into agreements, or are you aware of contracts that reduce substantially the liability of providers of IoT

products/services/robots?

1000 character(s) maximum

What type of contractual liability limitations have you faced (e.g. on errors, accuracy and reliability of

data, defects, functionality and availability of service, risk of interception of information, cyber-attacks)?

1000 character(s) maximum

Which exclusions (damage to property, financial loss) or limitations of damages (e.g. caps) connected in

any way with the use of IoT products/services/robots have you experienced or are you aware of?

1000 character(s) maximum

Do you think the attribution of liability in the context of IoT/Autonomous systems products and services

can adequately be dealt with through contracts?

Yes

Partially

3.2. Possible options and a way forward (both for consumers/end users and producers of IoT

/Robotics devices)

Do you think a risk management approach in which the party that is best placed to minimise or avoid the

realisation of the risk (e.g. the manufacturer of the IoT device, or the software designer) could be a

way forward?

Yes

I don't have information about what a risk management approach would entail and would thus prefer

not to answer

I don't know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

In your opinion, who should bear the liability in case of damages caused by defects or malfunctioning of

a smart device which combines tangible products, digital products and services?

1000 character(s) maximum

What type of liability, contractual or extra-contractual, is, in your opinion, the most consumer-friendly

way to deal with damages caused by defects or malfunctioning in smart devices, which combine

tangible products, digital products and services?

Contractual

Extra-contractual

None of them

I do not know

Do you think that the liability in relation to smart devices combining products and services require an ad

hoc approach at EU level?

1000 character(s) maximum

Independently of who is considered liable, should there be a liability cap, i.e. an upper bound to the

compensation of damages?

Yes, for all IoT products

Yes, but only for specific products in the experimentation/testing phase

Yes, but only for specific products abiding by strict safety standards

I do not know

What is your opinion on the idea of best practices guidelines and/or expected care and safety standards

that, if fulfilled, would automatically exclude/limit liability?

I agree, for all IoT products

I agree, but only for specific products in the experimentation/testing phase

I agree, but only for product performing automated actions or taking independent decisions

I do not agree

I do not know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Is there a need for mandatory cyber insurance?

Yes, for all IoT products

Yes, but only for specific products in the experimentation/testing phase

Yes, but only for product performing automated actions or taking independent decisions

I do not know

Do you feel protected by the current legal framework (both Business-to-Business and Business-to-

Consumer) for algorithms, e.g. in case it can be proven that an accident has been caused by a bug in

the algorithm?

Yes

I don't know

Should some sorts of standard certification or testbedding be envisaged for algorithm based services?

Yes

I don't know

Who should be liable for defects or accidents caused by products embedding open algorithms, i.e.

algorithms developed through cooperative platforms?

The producer

The user

The participants to the cooperative platform jointly

Nobody

Other

4. Portability of non-personal data, interoperability and standards

4.1. Portability of non-personal data

This section is directed towards all respondents, including consumers, organisations and businesses.

The objective of this section is to explore business situations where portability of non-personal data

can unlock opportunities and/or eliminate blockages in the data economy, as well as the effects of

such conditions on all the concerned actors.

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

Are you using or have you used services which allow you to port or retrieve non-personal data that you

had previously provided?

Yes

I don't know

What advantages does/would portability of non-personal data bring to you/your business?

Build value deriving from these data

Trade data on data trading platforms

Give access to third parties to the data

Switch easily service provider without losing these data

Other

Is your business offering portability of non-personal data to its business or individual clients?

Yes

Are you aware of other good examples of services offering data portability? Please specify.

1000 character(s) maximum

If you are a business user of cloud services or online platforms: Have you experienced difficulties in

switching providers?

Yes

I was not interested in switching providers

Do you see a specific need for businesses to receive non-personal data in a machine-readable format,

as well as the right to licence the use of such data to any third party (i.e. the right of data portability

under article 20 GDPR extended to any user and to non-personal data)?

Yes

I don't know

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

If you have further comments on portability rights, please insert them below.

1000 character(s) maximum

In relation to portability of data, the Danish Government supports the

development of standards which aims to promote interoperability and

portability. Furthermore, any new legislative proposal on data portability

should be proportional, not hamper competition and not impose unnecessary

burdens on service providers or public authorities

What are the possible effects of introducing a portability right for non-personal data regarding cloud

services? Please consider positive and possible adverse effects, and consequences for your business

and, more generally, for the user of the cloud service as well as the service provider and other

concerned actors.

1500 character(s) maximum

Enhancing portability also for non-personal data can address concerns over

lock-in and enable switching between providers. This will of course improve

competition in markets. The cost for service providers should however be

proportional to the societal benefits achieved.

What are the possible effects of introducing a portability right regarding non-personal data generated by

sensor-equipped machines, tools and/or devices? Please consider positive and possible adverse

effects, and consequences for your business and, more generally, for the user of the services as well

as manufactures, service providers and other concerned actors.

1500 character(s) maximum

What are the possible effects of introducing a portability right for non-personal data regarding online

platforms? Please consider positive and possible adverse effects, and consequences for your

business and, more generally, for the business user of the platform, consumers, intermediary (data)

services, the online platform and other concerned actors.

1500 character(s) maximum

Enhancing portability also for non-personal data can address concerns over

lock-in and enable switching between providers. This will of course improve

competition in markets. The cost for service providers should however be

proportional to the societal benefits achieved.

4.2. Interoperability and standards

This section is primarily directed towards businesses and organisations. The objective of this section

is to get the stakeholders' opinions on the best approaches to technically support data portability and

access to data.

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

As a provider of cloud services, do you provide “standard-compliant” solutions?

Yes

As a user of cloud services, do you give preference to “standard-compliant” solutions?

Yes

For which reasons would/do you use a “standard-compliant” cloud solution

Data portability of non-personal data

Service interoperability

Privacy, data protection compliance & Security

Cloud management

Service Level Agreement

Other

What do you consider as a priority for facilitating access to data and to improve its technical and

semantic discoverability and interoperability?

Common metadata schemes (including differentiated access, data provenance, quality)

Data catalogues

Use of controlled (multilingual) vocabularies

Common identifiers

Other

Please specify.

1000 character(s) maximum

European open standards could be an instrument to facilitate access to data.

Standards are a tool to distribute knowledge and technology by describing a

methodology, semantics or syntaxes.

What technical instruments should be used for promoting/implementing your priorities suggested in the

previous question?

Definition of new standards

Improvement of existing standards

Recommendations

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

What legal instruments should be used for promoting/implementing your priorities suggested in the

same question?

EU regulation

Guidelines

Support actions

Other

Please specify.

1000 character(s) maximum

The Danish Government supports the development of open standards which aims

to promote interoperability and portability. Interoperability, i.e. ensuring

effective communication between digital components such as devices, networks

or data repositories, is an essential prerequisite for a competitive well-

functioning digital economy.

Furthermore, it is important that the need for developing new standards is

assessed in close dialogue with stakeholders. Standardization only adds value

if stakeholders participate in the development, and if there is a concrete

demand from market players.

Do you see the need for the definition of a reference architecture recommending a standardised high-

level framework identifying interoperability interfaces and specific technical standards for facilitating

seamless exchanges across data platforms?

Yes

Additional contribution

Please feel free to upload a concise document, such as a position paper. The maximal file size is 1MB.

Please note that the uploaded document will be published alongside your response to the

questionnaire which is the essential input to this open public consultation. The document is an optional

complement and serves as additional background reading to better understand your position.

1c6013f5-4858-4ea8-83a0-64efebdf9b6a/17-01137-

docx

7_H_ringssvar_p__Kommissionens_h_ring_om_opbygning_af_en_europ_isk_data_konomi_2167016_11_0_final__

ERU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 182: Orientering om regeringens svar på EU-Kommissionens høring om en europæisk dataøkonomi, fra erhvervsministeren

If you wish to add further information - within the scope of this questionnaire - please feel free to do so

here.

2000 character(s) maximum

The Danish Government would like to note that section 2.3.1. in the

questionnaire containing a multiple choice format is not well suited to

establish a full understanding of the reasoning and underlying premises for

the answers. We suspect that answers will be incomparable as stakeholders

have different assumptions behind their individual answers.

Furthermore, in relation to 4.2 and dialogue with stakeholders, it should be

thoroughly analysed and assessed whether there is a need for the definition

of a reference architecture recommending a standardised high-level framework

identifying interoperability interfaces and specific technical standards for

facilitating seamless exchanges across data platforms.

The Danish Government generally supports the overall political objectives

expressed through these questions. But existing legislation should be

thoroughly analysed and assessed before new regulation or change of scope to

new technologies is considered. The special nature of digital technologies,

new digital business models and the opportunities embedded in the open

internet should be carefully considered before concluding on legislative

needs. The Danish Government places great emphasis on the objective to fully

realise free flows of data in the digital single market by removing all

unjustified restrictions on the location of data. Geographic restrictions

should be replaced with functional requirements that provide access to data

for relevant authorities and is supplemented by high levels of

cybersecurity.

Justified localisation requirements will still be warranted

but should be limited and substantiated on grounds of national security.

Public health data is considered covered by the GDPR.

Specifying a need to justify data localisation requirements would encourage

member states to adequately perform risk assessments and minimise situations

where localisation requirements are based on a perceived sense of security.

Contact

[email protected]