The Research on ownership of cell therapy products
The Research on ownership of cell therapy products
1. Issues concerning ownership of cell therapy products
Regarding the issue of ownership interests, American Medical Association(AMA)has pointed out in 2016 that using human tissues to develop commercially available products raises question about who holds property rights in human biological materials[1]. In United States, there have been several disputes concern the issue of the whether the donor of the cell therapy can claim ownership of the product, including Moore v. Regents of University of California(1990)[2], Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute(2003)[3], and Washington University v. Catalona(2007)[4]. The courts tend to hold that since cells and tissues were donated voluntarily, the donors had already lost their property rights of their cells and tissues at the time of the donation. In Moore case, even if the researchers used Moore’s cells to obtain commercial benefits in an involuntary situation, the court still held that the property rights of removed cells were not suitable to be claimed by their donor, so as to avoid the burden for researcher to clarify whether the use of cells violates the wishes of the donors and therefore decrease the legal risk for R&D activities. United Kingdom Medical Research Council(MRC)also noted in 2019 that the donated human material is usually described as ‘gifts’, and donors of samples are not usually regarded as having ownership or property rights in these[5]. Accordingly, both USA and UK tends to believe that it is not suitable for cell donors to claim ownership.
2. The ownership of cell therapy products in the lens of Taiwan’s Civil Code
In Taiwan, Article 766 of Civil Code stipulated: “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Accordingly, many scholars believe that the ownership of separated body parts of the human body belong to the person whom the parts were separated from. Therefore, it should be considered that the ownership of the cells obtained from the donor still belongs to the donor. In addition, since it is stipulated in Article 406 of Civil Code that “A gift is a contract whereby the parties agree that one of the parties delivers his property gratuitously to another party and the latter agrees to accept it.”, if the act of donation can be considered as a gift relationship, then the ownership of the cells has been delivered from donor to other party who accept it accordingly.
However, in the different versions of Regenerative Medicine Biologics Regulation (draft) proposed by Taiwan legislators, some of which replace the term “donor” with “provider”. Therefore, for cell providers, instead of cell donors, after providing cells, whether they can claim ownership of cell therapy product still needs further discussion.
According to Article 69 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “Natural profits are products of the earth, animals, and other products which are produced from another thing without diminution of its substance.” In addition, Article 766 of the Civil Code stipulated that “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Thus, many scholars believe that when the product is organic, original substance and the natural profits thereof are all belong to the owner of the original substance. For example, when proteins are produced from isolated cells, the proteins can be deemed as natural profits and the ownership of proteins and isolated cells all belong to the owner of the cells[6].
Nevertheless, according to Article 814 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “When a person has contributed work to a personal property belonging to another, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the owner of the material thereof. However, if the value of the contributing work obviously exceeds the value of the material, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the contributing person.” Thus, scholar believes that since regenerative medical technology, which induces cell differentiation, involves quite complex biotechnology technology, and should be deemed as contributing work. Therefore, the ownership of cell products after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person[7]. Thus, if the provider provides the cells to the researcher, after complex biotechnology contributing work, the original ownership of the cells should be deemed to have been eliminated, and there is no basis for providers to claim ownership.
However, since the development of cell therapy products involves a series of R&D activities, it still need to be clarified that who is entitled to the ownership of the final cell therapy products. According to Taiwan’s Civil Code, the ownership of product after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person. However, when there are numerous contributing persons, which person should the ownership belong to, might be determined on a case-by-case basis.
3. Conclusion
The biggest difference between cell therapy products and all other small molecule drugs or biologics is that original cell materials are provided by donors or providers, and the whole development process involves numerous contributing persons. Hence, ownership disputes are prone to arise.
In addition to the above-discussed disputes, United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research(UKCCCR)also noted that there is a long list of people and organizations who might lay claim to the ownership of specimens and their derivatives, including the donor and relatives, the surgeon and pathologist, the hospital authority where the sample was taken, the scientists engaged in the research, the institution where the research work was carried out, the funding organization supporting the research and any collaborating commercial company. Thus, the ultimate control of subsequent ownership and patent rights will need to be negotiated[8].
Since the same issues might also occur in Taiwan, while developing cell therapy products, carefully clarifying the ownership between stakeholders is necessary for avoiding possible dispute.
[1]American Medical Association [AMA], Commercial Use of Human Biological Materials, Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.3.9, Nov. 14, 2016, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/commercial-use-human-biological-materials (last visited Jan. 3, 2021).
[2]Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)
[3]Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F. Suppl. 2d, 1064 (SD Fl. 2003)
[4]Washington University v. Catalona, 490 F 3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007)
[5]Medical Research Council [MRC], Human Tissue and Biological Samples for Use in Research: Operational and Ethical Guidelines, 2019, https://mrc.ukri.org/publications/browse/human-tissue-and-biological-samples-for-use-in-research/ (last visited Jan. 3, 2021).
[6]Wen-Hui Chiu, The legal entitlement of human body, tissue and derivatives in civil law, Angle Publishing, 2016, at 327.
[7]id, at 341.
[8]Okano, M., Takebayashi, S., Okumura, K., Li, E., Gaudray, P., Carle, G. F., & Bliek, J. UKCCCR guidelines for the use of cell lines in cancer research. Cytogenetic and Genome Research, 86(3-4), 1999, https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2363383&blobtype=pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2021).
Strengthening Taiwan’s Pharmaceutical Resilience: Legal Reflections from the European Union’s Critical Medicines Act 2025/11/15 Introduction: From Vulnerability to Vision For Taiwan, an island state positioned at the crossroads of geopolitical tension and globalized medical trade, the question of pharmaceutical resilience is no longer a technical concern but a constitutional one. A nation’s ability to secure the continuous availability of essential medicines defines not only its public health capacity but the very credibility of its governance. In this light, the European Union’s (hereunder, the “EU”) proposed Critical Medicines Act (hereunder, “EU CMA”) offers Taiwan an illuminating case of how law can move beyond crisis management toward systemic foresight[1]. Resilience in the pharmaceutical sector is not merely about supply stability; it embodies a triple constitutional function—protecting life and health as fundamental rights, safeguarding national security through stable access to critical goods, and reinforcing trust in regulatory governance. Law thus becomes the medium through which uncertainty is rendered governable. The global pandemic revealed that the absence of legal foresight can paralyze even the most advanced health systems, exposing the structural fragility behind administrative efficiency. While Taiwan’s current pharmaceutical regulatory framework remains largely event-driven, reactive, and post-facto, the EU CMA exemplifies an industry-oriented, anticipatory, and pre-emptive model. The contrast underscores a jurisprudential lesson: resilience cannot be legislated through emergency decrees alone; it must be architected through a continuous, legally structured process that anticipates vulnerabilities before they materialize. This article identifies three foundational principles embedded in the EU CMA—visibility, diversification, and agility—and explores how these principles could guide Taiwan in constructing a forward-looking pharmaceutical resilience regime. The goal is not imitation, but inspiration—extracting from the EU experience a conceptual framework for a resilient Taiwanese pharmaceutical order. The EU CMA as a Law of Foresight The EU CMA represents a paradigm shift in pharmaceutical governance. Instead of fragmented national reactions to shortages, the Act establishes a Union-wide framework “to strengthen the availability and security of supply of critical medicinal products” through coordinated information systems, joint vulnerability assessments, and strategic industrial actions[2]. Its architecture reflects a policy-cycle logic: identification of critical medicines (Union list), assessment of vulnerabilities (harmonized monitoring), and action to strengthen capacity (strategic projects, coordinated procurement). Each stage is legally codified and procedurally transparent. The EU CMA thus transforms resilience from a policy aspiration into a governance architecture mandated by law. This approach reveals a fundamental evolution in regulatory philosophy: from law as reaction to law as anticipation. The EU does not merely respond to pharmaceutical disruptions; it legislates the ability to foresee them. This transformation elevates resilience from a managerial tool to a juridical principle that guides administrative behavior and industrial coordination. In this sense, the EU CMA operates as a constitutional statute of preparedness—one that embeds strategic vigilance within the ordinary operations of the market. Moreover, the Act’s systemic design demonstrates a rare synthesis of industrial, health, and competition policies under a unified legal grammar. By integrating economic instruments (such as incentives for local production) with public health imperatives (such as the availability of essential drugs), the EU CMA transforms siloed policy domains into a coherent resilience regime. It institutionalizes coordination not as an afterthought but as a binding legal discipline. Crucially, the EU’s approach embodies what might be called the legality of anticipation: law as an instrument that compels foresight. Resilience here is treated as a public good, transcending national borders but rooted in legal coordination. For Taiwan—whose pharmaceutical imports are geographically concentrated and whose market size limits domestic leverage—the lesson is profound: foresight must be institutional, not intuitive. Visibility: Law as an Instrument of Anticipation At the heart of the EU CMA lies the principle of visibility—the legalization of information as a tool of preparedness. The Act mandates the creation of a Union list of critical medicines[3] and a continuous monitoring system for supply vulnerabilities, coordinated through the Critical Medicines Coordination Group[4]. By institutionalizing information flows, the EU transforms data into a public good and transparency into an act of resilience. Visibility performs a dual function. On one hand, it is technocratic, enabling states to detect early signals of supply risk. On the other, it is constitutional, embedding accountability within knowledge. Uncertainty, when unregulated, leads to discretion; when structured, it becomes a risk, which law can govern. The EU CMA thus converts chaos into cognition—an epistemic transformation at the heart of modern administrative law. For Taiwan, this implies a shift from episodic crisis reporting toward permanent, cross-sectoral data governance. Information duties should not be seen as bureaucratic burdens but as civic infrastructures that permit collective foresight. Visibility, therefore, is not simply about surveillance but about legally enabling knowledge—the first step toward prevention rather than post-hoc management. Diversification: Embedding Resilience into Market Rationality The second principle, diversification, redefines efficiency itself. The EU CMA promotes manufacturing capacity within Europe under the doctrine of “open strategic autonomy”[5]. It supports Strategic Projects that enhance production, encourages cooperation with like-minded countries, and authorizes procurement methods that reward resilience factors alongside price—what EU law calls “MEAT” (Most Economically Advantageous Tender)[6]. This reframes the very idea of market rationality: security and competition are not opposites but complements. Law functions here as a corrective to market myopia, ensuring that the invisible hand does not ignore visible fragility. By quantifying resilience as a measurable value, the EU transforms precaution into an economic variable. For Taiwan—whose procurement and reimbursement systems have historically emphasized price containment—this perspective opens conceptual space. Resilience should not be perceived as inefficiency, but as intertemporal justice: a society’s investment in its future continuity. A diversified system—of suppliers, regions, and regulatory instruments—creates not redundancy but adaptability. In this sense, diversification is law’s expression of prudence in an interconnected economy. Agility: From Administrative Response to Legal Readiness The third principle, agility, captures the law’s capacity to act swiftly yet lawfully. The EU CMA institutionalizes flexibility through accelerated procedures for strategic projects, coordinated procurement frameworks, and crisis response mechanisms[7]. These powers are accompanied by procedural safeguards and sunset clauses, ensuring proportionality and reversibility. Agility thus represents legality in motion: action without arbitrariness. It reconciles speed with scrutiny by embedding emergency measures within predefined legal channels. The lesson for Taiwan is both institutional and philosophical—true readiness is not improvisation, but preparation that preserves legitimacy. In Taiwan’s current system, regulatory energy peaks during emergencies and dissipates thereafter. A mature resilience framework would instead cultivate continuous readiness—administrative structures that learn, anticipate, and adapt. Agility, understood legally, means codifying responsiveness as a standing competence of governance. It is the hinge connecting foresight and execution, legality and flexibility. Taiwan’s Legal Trajectory: From Event-Driven to Industry-Oriented Regulation Comparatively, Taiwan’s Pharmaceutical Affairs Act—even with its proposed amendments—remains largely event-driven and post-crisis in design[8]. Regulatory intervention often follows episodes of shortage or disruption. While recently introduced draft revisions strengthening supply chain obligations[9], these proposed revisions still operate primarily within a reactive paradigm. By contrast, the EU CMA envisions an industry-oriented, anticipatory, and system-based model. It embeds resilience into the legal DNA of pharmaceutical policy—linking regulation, industrial strategy, and public health. For Taiwan, this means evolving from regulatory firefighting to regulatory design: from curing failures to cultivating foresight. To achieve this, Taiwan’s legal development must transcend compliance formalism and embrace a culture of legal learning—where rules are not static commands but adaptive instruments of governance. The transition from event-driven to foresight-driven lawmaking will not only strengthen national health security but also elevate Taiwan’s position in the network of like-minded economies pursuing resilient supply systems. Conclusion: Toward a Resilient Legal Modernity The EU Critical Medicines Act demonstrates that law can be an architecture of anticipation. Its three pillars—visibility, diversification, and agility—form a grammar of resilience that integrates market mechanisms, administrative capacity, and democratic legitimacy. For Taiwan, the value of this model lies not in replication but in reflection. Visibility teaches that knowledge must be institutionalized. Diversification reminds us that resilience can coexist with efficiency. Agility shows that speed and legality are not mutually exclusive. Together, they suggest a new philosophy of governance: one that replaces reaction with design, and uncertainty with structured foresight. Yet the deeper lesson of the EU CMA is that resilience is not simply a functional attribute of a regulatory system—it is a constitutional virtue of modern states. To build resilience is to affirm the social contract anew: to promise citizens not that crises will never occur, but that when they do, institutions will stand ready, transparent, and just. This transforms law from a mirror of disorder into an instrument of collective composure. For Taiwan, embracing resilience as a constitutional principle means reimagining the relationship between law, science, and sovereignty. In a world where disruption is perpetual—whether by pandemics, trade shocks, or technological change—resilience becomes the language through which legality and modernity converge. It marks the transition from governing by reaction to governing by imagination. While the EU CMA relies on the Union’s vast market power to incentivize and coordinate pharmaceutical resilience, Taiwan faces a distinct structural challenge: its market size, though dynamic, cannot generate comparable leverage on a global scale. This asymmetry compels Taiwan to craft a dual strategy—anchoring its domestic resilience through legal foresight, while simultaneously aligning with international frameworks that promote secure and diversified supply chains. How Taiwan can reconcile these two imperatives—maintaining openness and integration with global partners, yet safeguarding autonomous resilience at home—will define the next frontier of its pharmaceutical governance. It is within this strategic and normative intersection that the Institute for Information Industry’s Science and Technology Law Institute (STLI) will continue its research efforts, exploring legal architectures capable of linking Taiwan’s national resilience with the broader ecosystem of global health security. Ultimately, resilience is not merely a regulatory principle but a moral commitment to time—a covenant between generations that law will foresee, prepare, and preserve. As Taiwan refines its pharmaceutical governance, the lesson from the EU CMA is both institutional and existential: to govern resilience is to govern the future itself, and to govern the future is to affirm the dignity of foresight as the highest form of rule of law. [1] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a framework for strengthening the availability and security of supply of critical medicinal products as well as for improving the availability of, and access to, medicinal products of common interest (Critical Medicines Act), COM(2025) 102 final (Mar. 11, 2025), https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2abe4fc8-059e-47d9-a20a-d9e3bfc5dc2c_en?filename=mp_com2025_102_act_en.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2025). [2] id. at Page 17. [3] id. at Page 27. [4] id. at Page 35. [5] CRITICAL MEDICINES ALLIANCE, STRATEGIC REPORT OF THE CRITICAL MEDICINES ALLIANCE (Feb. 28, 2025), https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3da9dfc0-c5e0-4583-a0f1-1652c7c18c3c_en?filename=hera_cma_strat-report_en.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2025). [6] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a framework for strengthening the availability and security of supply of critical medicinal products as well as for improving the availability of, and access to, medicinal products of common interest (Critical Medicines Act), COM(2025) 102 final (Mar. 11, 2025), https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2abe4fc8-059e-47d9-a20a-d9e3bfc5dc2c_en?filename=mp_com2025_102_act_en.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2025). [7] id. at Page 7. [8] Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Taiwan), Ministry of Justice, https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0030001 (last visited Nov. 2, 2025). [9] 〈衛生福利部公告「藥事法」部分條文修正草案〉，法源法律網，https://www.lawbank.com.tw/news/NewsContent.aspx?NID=206187.00（最後瀏覽日：2025/11/03）。
Innovative Practice of Israel's Government ProcurementInnovative Practice of Israel's Government Procurement Government procurement is an important pillar of government services. Because of the huge number of government purchases, government procurement management play an important role in promoting public sector efficiency and building citizenship. Well-designed government procurement systems also help to achieve policy such as environmental protection, innovation, start-ups and the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Nowadays, countries in the world, especially OECD countries, have been widely practiced with innovative procurement to stimulate innovation and start-ups, and call Innovation procurement can deliver solutions to challenges of public interest and ICTs can play a major role in this. However, in the OECD countries, in addition to the advanced countries that have been developed, many developing countries have also used government procurement to stimulate national R & D and innovation with remarkable results. Israel is one of the world's leading technology innovation centers, one of the most innovative economies in the world, continues to leverage its own strengths, support of technology entrepreneurship and unique environment, an international reputation in the high-tech industry, the spirit of technological innovation and novelty. Government procurement is a core element of the activities of Israeli government, agreement with suppliers and compliance with the Mandatory Tenders Law. The main challenge is how to ensure efficiency and maintain government performance while ensuring an equitable and transparent procurement process. Israel’s Mandatory Tenders Law has shown the central role played by the Israeli Supreme Court in creating and developing this law, even in the absence of any procurement legislation, based instead on general principles of administrative law. Once the project of creating a detailed body of public tendering law had been completed, and the legislator was about to step in, the Supreme Court was prepared to step out and transferring the jurisdiction to lower courts. The Knesset passed the Mandatory Tenders Law, and based on it the Government issued the various tendering regulations. Besides, Israel's various international agreements on government procurement, mainly GPA and other bilateral international agreements such as free trade agreements with Mexico and Colombia and free trade agreements and memoranda of understanding with the United States. The practical significance of these commitments can only be understood on the backdrop of Israel’s domestic preference and offset policies. These policies were therefore discussed and analyzed as they apply when none of the international agreements applies. The Challenge Tenders "How to solve the problem of overcrowding in the emergency department and the internal medicine department?" is the first of a series of "problem solicitations" released by the Israeli Ministry of Health which seeks to find a digital solution to the public health system problem, questions from the government while avoiding preconceived prejudices affect the nature of the solution, allowing multiple innovative ideas from different fields to enter the health system, make fair and transparent judgments about the ideal solution to the problem. In order to ensure transparency and integrity, equality, efficiency and competition in the decision-making process, the tender proposed by the Israeli Ministry of Health defines a two-stage tender process. The Ministry of Health of Israel, in order to improve the quality of medical care, shorten the waiting time for hospitalized patients, protect the dignity of patients and their families with patients as its center, and ensure their rights, while alleviating the burden of hospital staff, so as to pass the targeted treatment areas reduce the gap between various residential areas. The Israeli government deals with these issues through challenging tenders and offers a digital solution combined with innovative ideas. The initiative proposed through the development of public service projects can raise the level of public services in the country and help the government to reduce costs and achieve the purpose of promoting innovation with limited conceptual, technical and financial capabilities. In addition, due to the online operation of the challenging tender process throughout the entire process, fair and transparent procedures can be ensured, while public-private partnerships are encouraged to facilitate the implementation of the implementation plan.
Brief Introduction to Taiwan Social Innovation PoliciesBrief Introduction to Taiwan Social Innovation Policies 2021/09/13 1. Introduction The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)[1] set forth by the United Nations in 2000 are carried out primarily by nations and international organizations. Subsequently, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth by the United Nations in 2015 started to delegate the functions to organizations of all levels. Presently, there is a global awareness of the importance of balancing “economic growth”, “social progress”, and “environmental protection” simultaneously during development. In the above context, many similar concepts have arisen worldwide, including social/solidarity economy, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, and social innovation. Generally, social innovation aims to alter the interactions between various groups in society through innovative applications of technology or business models, and to find new ways to solve social problems through such alterations. In other words, the goal is to use innovative methods to solve social problems.The difference between social innovation and social enterprise is that social enterprise combines commercial power to achieve its social mission under a specific perspective, while social innovation creates social value through cooperation with and coordination among technology, resources, and communities under a diversified nature. 2. Overview of Taiwan Social Enterprise Policy To integrate into the global community and assist in the development of domestic social innovation, Taiwan’s Executive Yuan launched the “Social Enterprise Action Plan” in 2014, which is the first policy initiative to support social enterprises (from 2014 to 2016).Under this policy initiative, through consulting with various ministries and applying methods such as “amending regulations”, “building platforms”, and “raising funds”, the initiative set to create an environment with favorable conditions for social innovation and start-ups. At this stage, the initiative was adopted under the principle of “administrative guidance before legislation” in order to encourage private enterprise development without excessive burden, and avoid regulations restricting the development of social enterprises, such as excessive definition of social enterprises. Moreover, for preserving the original types of these enterprises, this Action Plan did not limit the types of social enterprises to companies, non-profit organizations, or other specific types of organizations. To sustain the purpose of the Social Enterprise Action Plan and to echo and reflect the 17 sustainable development goals proposed in SDGs by the United Nations, the Executive Yuan launched the “Social Innovation Action Plan” (effective from 2018 to 2022) in 2018 to establish a friendly development environment for social innovation and to develop diversified social innovation models through the concept of “openness, gathering, practicality, and sustainability”.In this Action Plan, “social innovation” referred to “social innovation organizations” that solve social problems through technology or innovative business models. The balancing of the three managerial goals of society, environment value, and profitability is the best demonstration of the concept of social innovation. 3. Government’s Relevant Social Enterprise Policy and Resources The ministries of the Taiwan Government have been promoting relevant policies in accordance with the Social Innovation Action Plan issued by the Executive Yuan in 2018, such as the “Registration System for Social Innovation Enterprises” (counseling of social enterprises), the “Buying Power - Social Innovation Products and Services Procurement”, the “Social Innovation Platform” established by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the “Social Innovation Manager Training Courses”, the “Promoting Social Innovation and Employment Opportunities” administered by the Ministry of Labor, and the “University Social Responsibility Program” published by the Ministry of Education. Among the above policies stands out the measures adopted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and a brief introduction of those policies are as follows: i. Social Innovation Platform To connect all resources involved in social issues to promote social innovation development in Taiwan, the Ministry of Economic Affairs established the “Social Innovation Platform”.[2] With visibility through the Social Innovation Platform, it has become more efficient to search for targets in a public and transparent way and to assist with the input of resources originally belonging to different fields in order to expand social influence. As a digital platform gathering “social innovation issues in Taiwan,” the Social Innovation Platform covers multiple and complete social innovation resources, which include the “SDGs Map” constructed on the Social Innovation Platform, by which we can better understand how county and city governments in Taiwan implement SDGs and Voluntary Local Review Reports, and which allow us to search the Social Innovation Database[3] and the registered organizations, by which citizens, enterprises, organizations, and even local governments concerned with local development can find their partners expediently as possible, establish service lines to proactively assist public or private entities with their needs/resources, and continue to enable the regional revitalization organizations, ministries, and enterprises to identify and put forward their needs for social innovation through the function of “Social Innovation Proposals”, which assist social innovation organizations with visibility while advancing cooperation and expanding social influence. In addition, the “Event Page” was established on the Social Innovation Platform and offers functions, such as the publishing, searching, and sorting of events in four major dimensions with respect to social innovation organization, governments, enterprises, and citizens; and encourages citizens, social innovation organizations, enterprises, and governments to devote themselves via open participation to continuously expande the influence of the (Civic Technology) Social Innovation Platform. The “Corporate Social Responsibility Report” collects the corporate social responsibility reports, observes the distribution of resources for sustainable development by corporations in Taiwan, offers filtering functions by regions, keyword, popular rankings, and or SDGs types, and provides contact information and a download function for previous years’ reports, in order to effectively assist social innovation organizations to obtain a more precise understanding of the status quo, needs, and trends with respect to their development of respective products and services. Figure 1: SDGs Map Reference: Social Innovation Platform (https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/) Figure 2: Social Innovation Database Reference: Social Innovation Platform (https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/) Figure 3: Social Innovation Proposals Reference: Social Innovation Platform (https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/) Figure 4: Event Page Reference: Social Innovation Platform (https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/) Figure 5: Corporate Social Responsibility Report Reference: Social Innovation Platform (https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/) ii. Social Innovation Database To encourage social innovation organizations to disclose their social missions, products and services, and to guide society to understand the content of social innovation, and to assist the administrative ministries to be able to utilize such information, the Ministry of Economic Affairs issued the “Principles of Registration of Social Innovation Organizations” to establish the “Social Innovation Database”. Once a social innovation organization discloses the items, such as its social missions, business model, or social influence, it may obtain the relevant promotional assistance resources, including becoming a trade partner with Buying Power (Social Innovation Products and Services Procurement), receiving exclusive consultation and assistance from professionals for social innovation organizations, and becoming qualified to apply to entering into the Social Innovation Lab.Moreover, the Ministry of Economic Affairs is simultaneously consolidating, identifying, and designating the awards and grants offered by the various ministries, policies and measures in respect of investment, and financing and assistance, as resources made available to registered entities. As of 25 May 2021, there were 658 registered social innovation organizations and 96 Social Innovation Partners (enterprises with CSR or ESG resources that recognize the cooperation with social innovation under the social innovation thinking model may be registered as a “Social Innovation Partner”).The public and enterprises can search for organizations registered in the Social Innovation Database through the above-said Social Innovation Platform, the search ability of which advances the exposure of and the opportunities for cooperation with social innovation organizations. Figure 6: Numbers of registered social innovation organizations and accumulated value of purchases under Buying Power Reference: Social Innovation Platform(https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/) iii. Buying Power - Social Innovation Products and Services Procurement In order to continue increasing the awareness on social innovation organizations and related issues and promote responsible consumption and production in Taiwan, as well as to raise the attention of the commercial sector to the sustainability-driven procurement models, the Ministry of Economic Affairs held the first “Buying Power - Social Innovation Products and Services Procurement” event in 2017. Through the award system under the Buying Power, it continues to encourage the governments, state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and organizations to take the lead in purchasing products or services from social innovation organizations, to provide the relevant resources so as to assist social innovation organizations to obtain resources and to explore business opportunities in the markets, to practice responsible consumption and production, and to promote innovative cooperation between all industries and commerce and social innovation organizations. The aim of the implementation of the Buying Power is to encourage the central and local governments, state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and non-governmental organizations to purchase products or services from organizations registered in the Social Innovation Database, while prizes will be awarded based on the purchase amounts accumulated during the calculation period. The winners can obtain priority in applying for membership in the Social Innovation Partner Group, with corresponding member services, in the future. Under the Social Innovation Platform, both the amount of purchase awards and the number of applicants for special awards continue to increase.So far, purchases have accumulated to a value of more than NT$1.1 billion (see Figure 6), and more than 300 organizations have proactively participated. iv. Social Innovation Mark In order to promote public awareness of social innovation, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has been charged with the commissioned task of promoting the Social Innovation Mark, and issued “ The Small and Medium Enterprise Administration of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Directions for Authorization of the Social Innovation Mark” as the standard for the authorization of the Social Innovation Mark. Social innovation organizations can use the Mark, through obtaining authorization, to hold Social Innovation Summits or other social innovation activities for promoting social innovation concepts. In order to build the Mark as a conceptual symbol of social innovation, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has been using the Social Innovation Mark in connection with various social innovation activities, such as the Social Innovation Platform, the Buying Power, and the annual Social Innovation Summit. Taking the selection of sponsors of the Social Innovation Summit in 2022 as an example[4], only organizations that have obtained authorization of the Social Innovation Mark can use the Mark to hold the Social Innovation Summit. Figure 7: The Social Innovation Mark of the Small and Medium Enterprise Administration, Ministry of Economic Affairs IV. Conclusion The “Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development” (OECD) regards social innovation as a new strategy for solving future social problems and as an important method for youth entrepreneurship and social enterprise development.Taiwan’s social innovation energy has entered a stage of expansion and development. Through the promotion of the “Social Innovation Action Plan,” the resources from the central and local governments are integrated to establish the Social Innovation Platform, the Social Innovation Database, the Social Innovation Lab, and the Social Innovation Mark. In addition, incentives such as the Buying Power have been created, manifesting the positive influence of Taiwan’s social innovation. [1] MDGs are put forward by the United Nations in 2000, and are also the goals requiring all the 191 member states and at least 22 international organizations of the United Nations to be committed to on their best endeavors, including: 1. eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, 2. applying universal primary education, 3. promoting gender equality and empowering women, 4. reducing child mortality rates, 5. improving maternal health, 6. combatting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, 7. ensuring environmental sustainability, and 8. establishing a global partnership for development. [2] Please refer to the Social Innovation Platform: https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/. [3] Please refer to the Social Innovation Database: https://si.taiwan.gov.tw/Home/Org_list. [4] Please refer to the guidelines for the selection of sponsors of the 2022 Social Innovation Summit: https://www.moeasmea.gov.tw/files/6221/4753E497-B422-4303-A8D4-35AE0B4043A9
Experiences about opening data in private sectorExperiences about opening data in private sector Ⅰ. Introduction Open data is the idea that data should be available freely for everyone to use and republish without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control. The concept of open data is not new; but a formalized definition is relatively new, and The Open Definition gives full details on the requirements for open data and content as follows: Availability and access: the data must be available as a whole with no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably by downloading over the internet. The data must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form. Reuse and redistribution: the data must be provided under terms that permit reuse and redistribution including the intermixing with other datasets. The data shall be machine-readable. Universal participation: everyone must be able to use, reuse and redistribute the data— which by means there should be no discrimination against fields of endeavor or against persons or groups. For example, “non-commercial” restrictions that would prevent “commercial” use, or restrictions of use for certain purposes are not allowed. In order to be in tune with international developmental trends, Taiwan passed an executive resolution in favor of promoting Open Government Data in November 2012. Through the release of government data, open data has grown significantly in Taiwan and Taiwan has come out on top among 122 countries and areas in the 2015 and 2016 Global Open Data Index[1]. The result represented a major leap for Taiwan, however, progress is still to be made as most of the data are from the Government, and data from other territories, especially from private sector can rarely be seen. It is a pity that data from private sector has not being properly utilized and true value of such data still need to be revealed. The following research will place emphasis to enhance the value of private data and the strategies of boosting private sector to open their own data. Ⅱ. Why open private data With the trend of Open Government Data recent years, countries are now starting to realize that Open Government Data is improving transparency, creating opportunities for social and commercial innovation, and opening the door to better engagement with citizens. But open data is not limited to Open Government Data. In fact, the private sector not only interacts with government data, but also produces a massive amount of data, much of which in need of utilized. According to the G20 open data policy agenda made in 2014, the potential economic value of open data for Australia is up to AUD 64 billion per annum, and the potential value of open data from private sector is around AUD 34 billion per annum. Figure 1 Value of open data for Australia (AUD billion per annum) Source: McKinsey Global Institute The purpose for opening data held by private entities and corporations is rooted in a broad recognition that private data has the potential to foster much public good. Openness of data for companies can translate into more efficient internal governance frameworks, enhanced feedback from workers and employees, improved traceability of supply chains, accountability to end consumers, and with better service and product delivery. Open Private Data is thus a true win-win for all with benefiting not only the governance but environmental and social gains. At the same time, a variety of constraints, notably privacy and security, but also proprietary interests and data protectionism on the part of some companies—hold back this potential. Ⅲ. The cases of Open Private Data Syngenta AG, a global Swiss agribusiness that produces agrochemicals and seeds, has established a solid foundation for reporting on progress that relies on independent data collection and validation, assurance by 3rd party assurance providers, and endorsement from its implementing partners. Through the website, Syngenta AG has shared their datasets for agricultural with efficiency indicators for 3600 farms for selected agro-ecological zones and market segments in 42 countries in Europe, Africa, Latin America, North America and Asia. Such datasets are precious but Syngenta AG share them for free only with a Non-Commercial license which means users may copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format freely but may not use the material for commercial purposes. Figure 2 Description and License for Open data of Syngenta AG Source: http://www.syngenta.com Tokyo Metro is a rapid transit system in Tokyo, Japan has released information such as train location and delay times for all lines as open data. The company held an Open Data Utilization Competition from 12 September to 17 November, 2014 to promote development of an app using this data and continues to provide the data even after the competition ended. However, many restrictions such as non-commercial use, or app can only be used for Tokyo Metro lines has weakened the efficiency of open data, it is still valued as an initial step of open private data. Figure 3 DM of Tokyo Metro Open data Contest Source: https://developer.tokyometroapp.jp/ Ⅳ. How to enhance Open Private Data Open Private Data is totally different from Open Government Data since “motivation” is vital for private institutions to release their own data. Unlike the government data can be disclosed and free to use via administrative order or legislation, all of the data controlled by private institutions can only be opened under their own will. The initiative for open data therefore shall focus on how to motivate private sectors releasing their own data-by ensuring profit and minimizing risks. Originally, open data shall be available freely for everyone to use without any restrictions, and data owners may profit indirectly as users utilizing their data creating apps, etc. but not profit from open data itself. The income is unsteady and data owners therefore lose their interest to open data. As a countermeasure, it is suggested to make data chargeable though this may contradict to the definition of open data. When data owners can charge by usage or by time, the motivation of open data would arise when open data is directly profitable. Data owners may also worry about many legal issues when releasing their own data. They may not care about whether profitable or not but afraid of being involved into litigation disputes such as intellectual property infringement, unfair competition, etc. It is very important for data owners to have a well protected authorization agreement when releasing data, but not all of them is able to afford the cost of making agreement for each data sharing. Therefore, a standard sample of contract that can be widely adopted plays a very important role for open private data. A data sharing platform would be a solution to help data owners sharing their own data. It can not only provide a convenient way to collect profit from data sharing but help data owners avoiding legal risks with the platform’s standard agreement. All the data owners have to do is just to transfer their own data to the platform without concern since the platform would handle other affairs. Ⅴ. Conclusion Actively engaging the private sector in the open data value-chain is considered an innovation imperative as it is highly related to the development of information economy. Although many works still need to be done such as identifying mechanisms for catalyzing private sector engagement, these works can be done by organizations such as the World Bank and the Centre for Open Data Enterprise. Private-public collaboration is also important when it comes to strengthening the global data infrastructure, and the benefits of open data are diverse and range from improved efficiency of public administrations to economic growth in the private sector. However, open private data is not the goal but merely a start for open data revolution. It is to add variation for other organizations and individuals to analyze to create innovations while individuals, private sectors, or government will benefit from that innovation and being encouraged to release much more data to strengthen this data circulation. [1] Global Open Data Index, https://index.okfn.org/place/（Last visited: May 15, 2017）
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Scientific Research Legal System and Response Thereto (1) – For Example, The Finnish Innovation Fund (“SITRA”)
- The amendment of the Taiwanese Personal Data Protection Act
- The Demand of Intellectual Property Management for Taiwanese Enterprises
- Legal issues of Third-Party Payment in Taiwan
- Recent Federal Decisions and Emerging Trends in U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System
- Blockchain in Intellectual Property Protection
- Copyright Ownership for Outputs by Artificial Intelligence