dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Concluding remarks How IT influences exploration and exploitation of business opportunities is a cutting-edge research question/problem that has not received sufficient attention in IS research. We combine theory on dynamic and operational capabilities, the IT-enabled organizational capabilities perspective, and the prior literature on exploration and exploitation to take a first step toward filling this gap. Using a unique research design that combines a survey and secondary dataset for a sample of 203 large firms in Spain, we find that IT infrastructure capability influences opportunity exploration capability through business experimentation and business flexibility. We also find that IT-enabled business flexibility influences opportunity exploitation capability by rapidly developing a valuable portfolio of operational capabilities, thus facilitating the firm's long-term survival.
527 0. 621 3. 611 4. 530 4. 335 3. 837 1. 663 62. 127 1. 630 0. 284 1. 589 91. 62 1. 585 1. 737 1. 776 1. 973 NA 1. 882 1. 006 1. 881 1. 006 1. 613 1. 944 NA 0. 568 *** NA 0. 275 ** 0. 840 *** 0. 281 ** 0. 482 ** 0. 491 *** 0. 174 * NA NA 0. 921 *** 0. 877 *** 0. 798 *** 0. 547 *** 0. 787 *** 0. 864 *** 0. 777 *** NA Technical IT infrastructure 4. 414 1. 444 1. 435 0. 188  † 0. 601 *** Skills of our IT personnel in designing databases are excellent ISO 9000 certifications 4. 626 4. 640 1. 367 1. 701 2. 052 1. 188 0. 295 *** 0. 331 * 0. 825 *** 0. 658 *** Skills of our IT personnel in developing new IT applications are excellent Total quality management type programs 4. 645 3. 734 1. 394 1. 737 2. 463 1. 188 0. 286 *** 0. 821 *** 0. 867 *** 0. 953 *** Skills of our IT personnel in improving the efficiency of the IT services are excellent 4.
Open data models have been developed to improve democratic participation, transparency, and innovation. There is a growing variation in open data policies and licenses that aim to maximize dissemination and reuse of data and databases. Diverse tools have been developed, tailored to the specific field of open data licensing. However, the normative framework of open data is nuanced, and intellectual property laws differ in the treatment of data and databases. The open data regulatory system created from the existing legal framework, the adopted open data policies, and the licenses developed presents an inherent complexity that impedes data reusability. The chapter investigates legal issues stemming from that system in the current open data environment. The objective is to showcase solutions to that complexity stemming from the evolution of open data licenses, policies, and ultimately, intellectual property laws.
org/10. 1007/978-94-6265-261-3_6 2 sector available for dissemination and reuse 6. The development of public policies does not suffice in achieving open data, because the existing normative framework establishes a priori a restrictive environment of legal protection of data and databases. Thus, licenses are necessary tools in order to create open data. 7 These tools, however, are not explicitly granted in the Directive. The PSI Directive and the development of an international open data movement has led to a cascade of open data policies on a local level including the creation or the integration of a variety of licenses and tools regulating the applicable rights. The establishment of a robust legal licensing framework constitutes "the cornerstone of open data" 8. The aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the framework surrounding open data regulation.
In that respect, the study first lays out the potential legal rights in data that an open license must address. Then, it gives an overview of the most prevalent licenses and tools used on an international and national level, to provide an insight into the evolution of terms and policies by organizations such as Creative Commons and Open Data Commons or government-issued tools from the UK and France. In this regard, the study presents some key aspects of open data licensing in order to identify the major legal issues related to the application of the open data principles on the existing legal framework. Finally, it identifies the pitfalls in the current state of open data policies and licenses in order to find paths that overcome them.
Copyright In Data And Databases The universal principles underpinning the protection of works of authorship stem from the Berne Convention 9. Its flexible definition of "literary and artistic works" in article 2(1) permits the protection of different types of subject matter provided that the minimum qualitative standards are met 10. Thus, data can only benefit from copyright protection when they pass the originality test as a literary work. Unoriginal raw data, as well as mere facts and ideas do not qualify for protection. A collection of more data can also be considered for copyright protection separately from the copyright status of the individual component data according to article 2(5) of the Berne Convention. Protection of compilations of data is also granted by article 5 11 of the WIPO The European Court of Justice 18 expanded the application of the originality standard across all types of works of authorship in the Infopaq  19  decision by determining that "it is only through the choice, sequence and combination of those words that the author may express his creativity in an original manner and achieve a result which is an intellectual creation".
20 In the Football Dataco case 21 , the ECJ ruled that a database is subject to copyright protection if it is the author's own intellectual creation expressing originality "in the selection or arrangement of that data". 22 en if users benefit from a series of exceptions limiting the scope of the owner's exclusive rights, the variety of the types of permitted acts in different legal systems and the lack of harmonization on a European level makes deciphering the legality of a use a difficult task. Moreover, access to data is necessary for a variety of reasons, some of them linked to public interest, to transparency as an essential aspect of the well being of a democratic society, to education, and to the development of businesses. Relying on the international patchwork of existing exceptions cannot ensure open data because their scope is very narrow and diverse according to applicable law.
15 Hereinafter the Database directive. 16 Article 1(2) of the directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. 17 According to article 4(1) of the directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, "the author of a database shall be the natural person or group of natural persons who created the base or, where the legislation of the Member States so permits, the legal person designated as the rightholder by that legislation". 18 Hereinafter ECJ. 19 ECJ Case C-5/08, Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening,  [2009 ] ECDR 16. 20 Id. para. 45. 21 ECJ Case C-604/10, Football Dataco Ltd et al v Yahoo! UK Ltd, [2012 ] GRUR 2012, 386. 22 Id. para. 42.
The Sui Generis Database Right The Database directive introduced a new intellectual property right 24 in article 7 25 , which is applied cumulatively to that of copyright in order to protect the economic investment 26 made for the creation of the database even if its contents are deemed to be unoriginal. It is not a copyright, but a sui generis right 27 since it does not fit any of the existing intellectual property right categories. The sui generis right gives exclusive rights to the creator of the protected database for 15 years from its completion. As with the definition of the notion "database" 28 in the directive, the term "investment" is construed in an open-ended manner as well. However, the qualities of that investment remained unclear 29 , other than the clarification that it consists of "the deployment of financial resources and/or the expending of time, effort and energy" 30.
The ECJ 31 has established a high standard of protection by maintaining that the investment dedicated to creating the data included in a database does not justify a sui generis right. 32 e addition of an extra layer of protection to databases gives the database maker the exclusive right to "prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database. "  33 The terms of "extraction" and "re-utilization" are to be interpreted widely. 34 Drawing on the rights of reproduction and communication to the public in copyright law, infringement is not limited  24  Although not expressly qualified as an intellectual property right, the database right in question is considered as such because of its attributes.
For example, article 7(3) clarifies that the right "may be transferred, assigned or granted under contractual licence. " See  Derclaye 2007, p 3-4; Derclaye 2014, p. 320. 25  "A right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database. "  26 According to Goldstein and Hugenholtz, "judicial decisions in the Netherlands and the United States that copyright does not protect databases that result merely from economic investment or intellectual effort helped to spur the introduction of sui generis protection.
" Goldstein and Hugenholtz 2013, p. 240. 27 "Of its own kind". 28 Derclaye 2005b. 30 Recital 40, Database directive. 31 In British Horseracing Board v William Hill 31 , the ECJ ruled that "the expression 'investment in (…) the obtaining (…) of the contents' of a database must (…) be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database, and not to the resources used for the creation as such of independent materials. ": ECJ Case C-203/02, British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organization Ltd,[2004] I-10415, para 31. See also, ECJ case C-338/02, Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Svenska Spel AB, [2005] ECDR 4. 32  According to an author, "this interpretation is very important because a lot of so called spin-off databases, … This includes, for example, event schedules, television or radio programs, transport timetables, telephone subscriber data, stock prices, scientific data resulting from research or experimentation and sports results.
Accepted manuscript The final publication is available at B. van Loenen et al. (eds. ), Open Data Exposed, Information Technology and Law Series 30, https://doi. org/10. 1007/978-94-6265-261-3_6 5 to the creation of a competing database. All similar acts that result in the extraction or re-use of a "substantial part of the database" 35 are considered to be infringing. The Database Directive does not clearly indicate the exclusion of public databases that fall under the PSI Directive from qualifying for the sui generis protection. In principle, since public sector databases are not excluded, branches of state power can benefit from the sui generis right protection when they fulfill the conditions 36. Absent an ECJ decision, however, courts from some Member States have ruled against the possibility of public bodies asserting sui generis database rights.
Namely, courts in Italy and Germany have held that even if public sector databases qualify for the protection, they should be exempt from it. 37 The highest administrative court in Amsterdam has held that the City of Amsterdam cannot hold sui generis rights on a database even if it has made a substantial investment towards its creation because the has not borne the risk for the investment in question. 38 Thus, it cannot impose limitations or charges in the reuse of that database. Finally, French law has been amended 39 to clarify that public bodies cannot invoke a sui generis right in order to refuse the reuse of their data.
Accepted manuscript The final publication is available at B. van Loenen et al. (eds. ), Open Data Exposed, Information Technology and Law Series 30, https://doi. org/10. 1007/978-94-6265-261-3_6 7 or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation. " 52 This restriction has been subject to criticism for posing an unnecessary restriction to free works 53 but also for the difficulties in finding a clear definition 54. Besides these critiques, the potential of the NC element in positively affecting current business models towards more open standards has been recognized 55. Finally, the Share Alike (SA) clause is the core element of the copyleft movement. By using this element, the rightsholders affirm their decision to allow modifications to the share work on the condition that the derivatives are released under an equivalent license, thus ensuring that the work will maintain the same degree of freedom throughout its evolution 56.
This process, called "porting" 60 , created a "multilingual model of the licensing suite" that was "legally enforceable in jurisdiction around the world" 61. However, version 4. 0 adopted an international set of licenses that "operate globally, ensuring they are robust, enforceable and easily adopted worldwide" 62. The policy shift was also possible because of the linguistic evolution of the terms of the licenses. For example, a modification that permitted the application of the Creative Commons licenses to data was the inclusion of data and databases in the subject matter of the license. The first mention of databases is found at ported licenses of version 2. 0 in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, and France. However, it was not until version 4. 0 that the international licenses explicitly included databases and their relevant rights.
The shift in language had as a consequence the modification of the wording from 'author' and 'work' to 'creator' and 'material' in order to better reflect the requirements of databases. The initial policy that advised against using the licenses for databases changed as the need for standardized licensing for open data became more evident. Addressing the sui generis right was the biggest challenge. In fact, excluding this right would make the licenses impossible to be applied to certain types of works such as Internet collections  63. At the same time, incorporating the sui generis right to local versions of the licenses would "become especially problematic as they pose the danger that, through the use of a Creative Commons license, protection of the sui generis database right can be 'imported' to a jurisdiction without any sui generis database right protection".
64 Even if the unported version 3. 0 of the licenses did not address the sui generis right, the ported versions in countries where that right existed chose to implement it. The implementation consisted of including the sui generis right in the rights  58   covered by the license (when applicable according to applicable law) but at the same time excluding the application of the license elements when only the sui generis right was applicable. Finally, when the licensor was also the sui generis rightsholder, the right was considered waived. This method was justified in that the local teams did not want to see the database right be exported to other jurisdictions through the share alike provisions. Additionally, it was "demonstrated that applying license elements (BY, NC, ND, SA) to scientific databases is not recommended for science because the flow of information should be unrestricted and also because it is difficult even for specialized lawyers to distinguish what part is a database and assess what is a commercial use.
"  65 rsion 4. 0 of the Creative Commons licenses fully integrates the sui generis database right 66. Section 2 of the licenses includes the sui generis database right in the licensed rights. Section 4 describes the obligations of the licensee when using and extracting all or a substantial portion of a database in which the licensor holds a sui generis database right. All license conditions apply to the rights defined in Section 1. Thus, the licensees are required to respect the license elements even when only sui generis rights apply in the database. Lastly, the prerogatives of applying the share alike restrictions have been subject to variations throughout the evolution of the versioning process of the Creative Commons licenses. Namely, while the share alike clause of version 1. 0 of the licenses demanded that any adapted material be shared with the exact same license, consequent versions changed the wording in order to include future versions of the same licenses or other licenses with the same level of permissions and restrictions 67.
The Creative Commons waiver of rights (CC0) Besides the main core of the six licenses, Creative Commons has also developed a tool destined to waive all existing rights in the work shared, which is called CC0. It is a "no rights reserved" tool, because the rightsholder waives all rights related to the work. CC0 is a "universal dedication that may be used by anyone wishing to permanently surrender the copyright and database rights they may have in a work, thereby placing it as nearly as possible into the worldwide public domain". 69 According to one of the accepted definitions, the public domain is comprised by "intellectual elements that are not protected by copyright or whose protection has lapsed, due to the expiration of the duration for protection" 70. The dedication of databases to the public domain through the CC0 permits a free reuse of the database.
Accepted manuscript The final publication is available at B. van Loenen et al. (eds. ), Open Data Exposed, Information Technology and Law Series 30, https://doi. org/10. 1007/978-94-6265-261-3_6 10 rights are inalienable in a lot of countries and because there is no generalized process of dedication to the public domain found in positive law. The dedication of databases to the public domain with the use of CC0 was considered a solution that would circumvent the normative diversity in applicable laws. Indeed, the distribution of a European database using CC0 "would allow the product to circulate freely without any doubt about the systems of protection to be applied" 71. Waiving all rights would bring the legal certainty needed for the open data. 72 However, the use of CC0 did not necessarily ensure respect of the principles of open data.
For example, the free use of data did not accommodate the conditions of attribution and provenance in the use of databases even if the infrastructure of CC0 asks for information on the work in question. Applying CC0 on a dataset does not ensure a perennial state of openness because of the possibility of appropriation of the data. The application of a share alike clause, which would enable "an inclusive approach" 73 is only possible through the use of the licenses and not through the CC0 waiver. What's more, attaching restrictions to open data may derive from public policies more broadly. In these cases, the licenses seem more suitable than waiver.
The Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) The first database-specific tool, which prompted the creation of the Open Data Commons project, was the Public Domain Dedication and License 75. It consists of a waiver of all rights and claims in the database, placing the database in the public domain. The waiver serves the purpose of "maximizing the dissemination and the overall utility of data and databases-by reducing legal uncertainty and transaction costs to the minimum". 76 Applying the principles of CC0, the Public Domain Dedication and License is similar to both the Creative Commons structure and the terminology of database rights regulation.
The Open Data Commons project converged with the initial principles promoted by Creative Commons, that open data sharing "should come with the fewest possible restrictions and obligations (…) The PDDL, CC0, and other public domain dedications or copyright waivers, provide a far simpler, more consistent, and more benign approach that closely mirrors a long history and tradition of scientific, educational, and cultural sharing practices. For these communities, these norms converge on the public domain". 77 Although the language of CC0  71 Aliprandi 2012, p. 11. 72  "This is important since when a dataset is shared on the web, an American reuser, for instance, might wonder if he or she has to comply with an European right that he or she is not familiar with". Leucci 2014. 73 Artusio and Morando 2014.
Accepted manuscript The final publication is available at B. van Loenen et al. (eds. ), Open Data Exposed, Information Technology and Law Series 30, https://doi. org/10. 1007/978-94-6265-261-3_6 11 remains broader, as it is not specific to one type of content, the PDDL applies the waiver for all rights that can be found in databases, with a fallback license for rights that are inalienable in some jurisdictions, such as moral rights. The legal structure of the "two prong approach" 78 to open data consists of a waiver of sui generis rights and copyright for jurisdictions that allow for it 79 and a licensing of the rights that are not subject to a waiver in some jurisdictions 80. However, the waiver and license do not cover for any patent or trademarks that may subsist in the database in question 81 because "it was important that the provider of the data under the PDDL be placed in the same position as anyone else using the data" 82.
The innovation of the PDDL is the voluntary addition of community norms in the use of open data. The soft law principles do not constitute a contract, but through the principles described they try to achieve a social responsibility towards the use of open data. Even though people are free to create their own community norms, the example provided by Open Data Commons incites the introduction of a reciprocal principle and the creation of attribution and citation norms in specific datasets. In maintaining a non-legally binding document, the project's objective was to avoid overburdening users and licensors and also to ensure malleability in data use.
The Open Data Commons licenses (ODbL) The database-specific licenses created by Open Data Commons used the Attribution and Share alike elements thus creating the Attribution License (ODC-By) and the Open Database License (ODC-ODbL). The elements used in the licenses are already standardized by Creative Commons. The Open Data Commons licenses apply the same principles in order to avoid user confusion and to improve effectiveness of the end result licensing tools. At the same time and because the licenses are database-oriented, the elements are modified to cater for the requirements ensuring the legal dissemination of open data. The Attribution and Share alike elements are more detailed so as to include issues involving the creation of derivative databases, the extraction and reuse of data publicly, as well as the distinction between licensing the database and its content.
Namely, the preamble of the licenses clarifies that "because databases can have a wide variety of types of contents, this document only governs the rights over the database, and not the contents of the database individually. You should use the Open Data Commons together with another license for the contents, if the contents have a single set of rights that governs all of them". As with the PDDL, only the copyright and sui generis database rights are covered by the license grant and are subject to the license conditions. However, the share alike license condition differs from the voluntary share alike soft law reciprocal principle that can be found with the application of the PDDL. While users are contractually bound to respect the former, they are free to ignore the latter. The adaptation conditions for the creation and use of derivative databases will depend on the nature of these elements 83.