The competitiveness blind spot
The summer of 2026 may become a defining moment for Europe’s competitiveness agenda. The Commission has announced presentations of Innovation Act, Startup and Scaleup Strategy as well as proposed changes to the rules on public procurement. There are also substantial discussions on research policy. The core aim in these actions is to improve European competitiveness.
This is of course called for. There are a lot of indicators that call for concern regarding Europe’s innovative power. One such indicator is to be found in the statistics for from the European Patent Office (EPO). The top 3 companies applying for patents at EPO in 2025 was Samsung, Huawei and LG. None of these are European. In fact, Samsung alone applied for more patents through EPO in 2025 than Nokia, Siemens and Ericsson – the top 3 European applicants. This highlights a structural competitiveness gap: Europe generates innovation but struggles to scale it into global industrial leadership.
Another indicator is that EU spends so much energy at targeting so called foreign tech giants. EU spends a lot less time in analysing how come there are very few, if any, European tech giants. One overlooked factor is how fragmented and complex intellectual property frameworks affect the ability of European startups to scale across borders. This is especially true regarding copyright.
From a policy perspective, the Commissions actions can only be welcomed. It is necessary to act in order to not be even more left behind. However, the actions taken have to be the right ones.
In policy discussions on the conditions for startups and scaleups, questions discussed are for example access to finance. It sometimes sounds that if only more money is made available for European startups, everything will be better. What is too often left out is the importance of strategic handling of intangible assets. Without integrating the strategic management of intangible assets and intellectual property, increased funding alone will not deliver stronger competitiveness outcomes.
This links to all the discussions regarding financing, regarding access to equity and so on. Of course, it is necessary to discuss that as well. It is however equally important to raise issues on how handling of intellectual property rights is strongly linked to the ability to attract investments. For investors, intellectual property is often a key indicator of scalability, defensibility and long-term value.
Similarly, any proposal on innovation must not only be aiming at developing better ideas or better solutions. It must also include how these ideas and solutions are to be brought to market. If that dimension is not added, there is a great risk that money will be spent without any results coming out and contributing to European competitiveness.
Public procurement represents a large part of the European economy. To date, intellectual property rights are often handled in ways that reduce incentives for companies to participate or invest. Any proposal coming regarding development of the rules of public procurement without addressing clauses on intellectual property rights will not be fit for purpose.
To be able to do the right thing there are some perspectives that are necessary. First of all, when ever talking about innovation it is important to keep Joseph Schumpeter and Josef Kohler in mind. As mentioned, innovation is much more than just ideas and solutions. According to the research by Joseph Schumpeter, it is innovation only when it is something to bring to market. Any time policy proposals are made regarding “innovation” without discussing the relation to the market, the proposals will never solve any problems. Moreover, in order to bring ideas and solutions to market it is necessary to consider intellectual property rights.
Josef Kohler was a legal researcher and is in fact a key person in the legal construction of intellectual property rights. When discussion intellectual property rights, it is often emphasized how they create exclusive rights. His contribution was a legal construction that makes it possible to use the rights to be able to share, through for example licences. Today, this is often a key to economic growth. The marginal cost to give one more actor a license is often very low in comparison to the possible gain.
The coming months will be decisive. Europe has recognised the need to act - but unless the missing link between innovation, intellectual property and market deployment is addressed, the impact of these initiatives will remain limited.