The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy

Pirmais vāks
Steven 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

Lietotāju komentāri - Rakstīt atsauksmi

Ierastajās vietās neesam atraduši nevienu atsauksmi.

Saturs

1
1
2
37
The framework for the rules regulating undertakings in a dominant
40
in the test of exceptional circumstances This tends to restrict
46
2 Excessive pricing and IPRs
49
Article 82a must be kept to the more extreme cases
50
4 Tieins Article 82d
72
take the Windows Media Player172 The licence for Windows covered
75
uncomfortable gaps in intellectual property legislation where widespread
275
achieving the Patent Acts goal of promoting innovation and enhancing
277
obligation to use However this is not the case Even
284
case might be a contractual violation but not a patent
286
policy instrument remuneration doctrine the Osaka High Court may have
287
toner cartridges The court developed a twostep test in order
288
purchasing but rather obtain the desired goods having proper quality
292
there was a licensing agreement at all To the extent
295

agreement as a whole will be automatically void and unenforceable
81
licensee to one or more particular fields of use leaving
91
7 Licensing agreements between competitors
99
duration of the agreement barring material modifications of the agreement
109
3
125
disagreement and reversed Federal Circuit in other aspects of patent
132
determination that the claimed invention was not earlier known or
133
Dann v Johnson45 which applied a stricter test of nonobviousness
136
it In the courts estimation Americans public use of the
137
elementbyelement basis In Laramie Corp v Amron54 for example the
138
defences That discussion is deferred until the antitrust laws have
141
2 Copyright protection and competition policy
144
would be misallocation of capital resources in affected innovation and
152
the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 renders trade secret misappropriation
154
wrongful conduct can occur in two situations First a trade
159
advertising and other forms of brand differentiation harm consumers More
162
court agreed that Microsofts use of the Javacompatible mark would
166
without the need to prove harm of any sort The
170
strategic commercial conduct and creating investment incentives interact to
171
structure should be an important part of determining the full
174
C Judicial interpretation of the statutes
179
Collaboration Guidelines Discussion of the Licensing Guidelines is deferred
186
effect of the foreign activity is to hurt US competition
188
parties activities300 Unless a licence falls into one of the
193
period The Court rightly rejected claims of both patent misuse
209
elsewhere the first sale doctrine exhausts the licensors right to
214
rivals that assured the continuation of open architecture and publication
221
4
250
products are concerned in the domestic context this is interpreted
256
exempt from the application of the AMA and regards the
257
Apart from these three types the FTC has also pursued
261
Retail price maintenance schemes are a violation per se
262
Between 1969 and 1996 the clause most frequently found in
268
this agreement according to this author should not have been
270
tiein sales of the dominant with related products44 In the
272
copyrights between the two Here TV stations often in a
273
of section 261 of the Copyright Act that would apply
300
In other words the court bases its reasoning on the
301
These provisions also apply to the importation of goods protected
303
5
315
are different The courts have ruled that a trade mark
318
B Intellectual Property and Competition
325
Section 50 is cast in language that makes it difficult
335
authorised75 On the other hand and rather inconsistently the Tribunal
336
V Two lessons from Australian competition law
341
6
348
does not prejudice national property ownership systems Sidestepping a
350
D The competition rules
352
litigation which is partly a product of the reticence to
366
7
375
the relative merits of their products against the characteristics of
399
his conduct attracts anticompetitive repercussions that go against the public
401
The CCS will consider if the restraints
405
of the licensing parties occupies a position of market dominance
407
8
429
observed that the international situation is far from fixed with
432
2 Subsection 1 does not apply where the condition of
451
The rationale for allowing parallel imports related to labels packaging
453
92 Trade mark The law relating to parallel importation of
454
9
466
dominance in negotiating technology transfer clauses that are unfair
471
Development Organisations UNIDO World Industrial Development
473
By contrast Moran argues that FDI involving internalised transfers is
475
institutions whereby educators can be trained to help young people
492
10
505
intellectual assets should be treated like any other source of
526
While patentbased monopoly power should not receive differential
529
Overall then crosslicensing is likely to facilitate tacit collusion
532
to be introduced also increases competition in the downstream markets67
539
clear that only agreements that would pass traditional antitrust scrutiny
540
wellknown brand has more at stake will convince them to
545

Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu

Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes

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.

Bibliogrāfiskā informācija