The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition PolicySteven D. Anderman Cambridge University Press, 2007. gada 10. maijs - 572 lappuses The purpose of this book is to examine the experience of a number of countries in grappling with the problems of reconciling the two fields of competition policy and intellectual property rights. The first part of the book indicates the variation in legislative models as well as the wide variety of judicial and administrative doctrines that have been used. The jurisdictions selected for study are the three major trading blocks with the longest experience of case law (the EU, the USA and Japan) and three less populous countries with open economies (Australia, Ireland and Singapore). In the second part of the book we look at a number of issues closely related to the interface between competition law and intellectual property rights. Separate chapters analyse the issue of parallel trading and exhaustion of IPRs, the issue of technology transfer, and the economics of the interface between intellectual property and competition law. |
No grāmatas satura
6.–10. rezultāts no 52.
44. lappuse
... firm dominance and joint or collective dominance. The Commission's assessment of single firm dominance starts with ... dominant market power.24 For the purpose of understanding the Article 82/IPR interface, it is important to distinguish ...
... firm dominance and joint or collective dominance. The Commission's assessment of single firm dominance starts with ... dominant market power.24 For the purpose of understanding the Article 82/IPR interface, it is important to distinguish ...
46. lappuse
... dominant position, as determined by the criteria used in cases of single firm dominance.35 If in such cases the collective entity is dominant, then it will be subject to the prohibitions against abusive conduct established by Article 82 ...
... dominant position, as determined by the criteria used in cases of single firm dominance.35 If in such cases the collective entity is dominant, then it will be subject to the prohibitions against abusive conduct established by Article 82 ...
47. lappuse
... dominant firm causing damage to the competitive structure of markets already weakened by the presence of its dominance on a market . In other words , it has been interpreted to protect competitors as well as consumers and customers ...
... dominant firm causing damage to the competitive structure of markets already weakened by the presence of its dominance on a market . In other words , it has been interpreted to protect competitors as well as consumers and customers ...
48. lappuse
... firm is engaging in competition by performance is a constituent element of the Article 82 abuse in the sense that the competition authority must at least make out a prima facie case that it is not part of the dominant firm's conduct ...
... firm is engaging in competition by performance is a constituent element of the Article 82 abuse in the sense that the competition authority must at least make out a prima facie case that it is not part of the dominant firm's conduct ...
49. lappuse
... dominant firm is pro- hibited from 'directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions'. From an early stage, the European Court of Justice has held that in principle, a particularly ...
... dominant firm is pro- hibited from 'directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions'. From an early stage, the European Court of Justice has held that in principle, a particularly ...
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy Steven D. Anderman Priekšskatījums nav pieejams - 2009 |
The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy Steven D. Anderman Priekšskatījums nav pieejams - 2007 |
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
abuse analysis anticompetitive apply Article 82 Australian block exemption block exemption regulation clauses CMLR commercial Commission compete competition authorities competition law competition policy competitors compulsory licence conduct consumers contract copy Copyright Act copyright owner copyright protection Corp cross-licensing decision defence District Court doctrine dominant firm EC competition economic effect enforcement European example exclusive rights exhaustion exploit Federal grant Guidelines Ibid infringement innovation intellectual property rights interface invention issue legislation licensing agreements licensor limited manufacture market power market share merger Microsoft monopoly power network effects Osaka District Court parallel imports Patent Act patent holder patent law patent pools patented products potential prohibition provisions refusal Regulation relevant restraints restrictions royalty rule of reason scope Singapore statutory Supreme Court technology transfer Tetra Pak third parties tion trade mark Trade Practices trade secret UNCTAD undertaking vertical agreements
Populāri fragmenti
17. lappuse - In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
179. lappuse - Black explained the appropriateness of, and the need for, per se rules: "[T]here are certain agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.
226. lappuse - ... patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or b. the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or c.
167. lappuse - Doubtless a State may, in appropriate circumstances, require that goods, whether patented or unpatented, be labeled or that other precautionary steps be taken to prevent customers from being misled as to the source, just as it may protect businesses in the use of their trademarks, labels, or distinctive dress in the packaging of goods so as to prevent others, by imitating such markings, from misleading purchasers as to the source...
43. lappuse - The geographical reference market shall consist of the area in which the undertakings concerned are involved in the supply and demand of products or services, in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighbouring areas because, in particular, conditions of competition are appreciably different in those areas.
40. lappuse - Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
7. lappuse - Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.
201. lappuse - The case law sets forth four elements necessary to establish liability under the essential facilities doctrine: (1) control of the essential facility by a monopolist; (2) a competitor's inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility; (3) the denial of the use of the facility to a competitor; and (4) the feasibility of providing the facility.