The competition law/IP ‘interface’: An introductory note

The Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1-34

  Anderman, Steven D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873847343     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511495205.002     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc, F. 2d. 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2. Microsoft Corporation v. United States 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir.) cert. denied 122 S.Ct. 350 (2001).
3. Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission (Tetra Pak I) [1990] ECR II-309.
4. Federal Trade Commission, 'To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy' (2003).
5. S. Scotchmer, 'Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law' (1991) 5 Journal of Economic Perspectives 29-30.
6. R. Merges and R. Nelson, 'On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope' (1990) 90 Columbia Law Review 839, at 916.
7. R. Peritz, Competition Policy in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
8. E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 91 (1902)
9. United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265, 280 (1942).
10. Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Company Manufacturing Company, 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
11. H. Johannes, 'Technology Transfer under EEC Law - Europe between the Divergent Opinions of the Past and a New Administration: A Comparative Law Approach' (1982) Fordham Corporate Law Institute 65.
12. US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, 'Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property' (6 April 1995).
13. R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox (New York: Basic Books, 2nd edn, 1978)
14. R. Posner, Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective (Chicago 1976).
15. US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, 'Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property' (6 April 1995).
16. Deutche Grammophon GmbH v. Metro-SB-Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487 para. 16
17. Volvo AB v. Veng (UK) Ltd. [1988] ECR 6211 para. 8
18. RTE, ITV and BBC v. Commission [1995] ECR I-743, paras. 45-7.
19. S. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) Ch. 12.
20. Report of the Royal Society, 'Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science' (2003) 9-10.
21. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), 'Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy' (2002) 2
22. I. Rahnasto, Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects and Antitrust Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 49-62.
23. OECD, Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights (Paris, 1989).
24. W. Cornish and D. Llewellyn. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, and Allied Rights (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn, 2000).
25. H. Demsetz, 'Towards a Theory of Property Rights' (1967) American Economic Review 347.
26. R. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Law (New York, 1998)
27. M. Lehmann, 'The Theory of Property Rights and the Protection of Intellectual and Industrial Property' (1989) 16 IIC No. 5 525.
28. R. Merges, 'As Many as Six Impossible Patents for Breakfast: Property Right for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform' (1999) 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 578.
29. Warner Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
30. M. Adelman, 'The New World of Patents Created by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit' (1987) 20 University of Michigan Journal of Law 979.
31. Diamond v. Chakraubarty, (1980) 447 U.S. 303
32. L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
33. P. Gerhart, 'Why Lawmaking for Global Intellectual Property is Unbalanced' (2000) European Intellectual Property Review 309.
34. J. Braithwaite and P. Drahos, Global Business Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 61-3.
35. M. Hodgson, 'Changes to UK Compulsory Patent Licensing Law' (1992) European Intellectual Property Review 214.
36. D. Evans and R. Schmalensee, 'Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries', www.nber.org/books/innovation2/evans 5-1-01.pdf.
37. S. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: The Regulation of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
38. J. Ordover and R. Willig, 'An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation' (1981) 91 Yale Law Journal 8, 13.
39. C. Ahlborn, D. Evans and A. Padilla, 'Competition Policy in the New Economy; Is European Competition Law up to the Challenge?' (2001) European Competition Law Review 156, 160.
40. D. Balto and R. Pitofsky, 'Antitrust and Competition in High Technology Industries: The New Challenge' (1998) 43 Antitrust Bulletin 583, 596.
41. A. D. Melamed, 'Network Industries and Antitrust', Federalist Society Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Law and Public Policy: Competition, Free Markets and the Law, www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/2428.htm.
42. Wadman, 'Testing Time For Gene Patents as Europe Rebels' (2002) Nature 413, 433.
43. R. Nelson and S. Winter, 'In Search of a More Useful Theory of Innovation' (1977) Research Policy 5: 36-7
44. R. Langlois and P. Robertson, 'Networks and Innovation in a Modular System: Lessons from the Micro-Computer and Stereo Component Industries' (1992) 21 Research Policy 297.
45. B. Arthur, 'Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock in by Historical Events' (1989) 99 Economic Journal 116
46. R. Peritz, 'Towards a Dynamic Antitrust Analysis', Paper presented to the American Antitrust Institute Annual Conference, 1 July 2002, Washington D.C.
47. S. Liebowitz and S. Margolis, 'Are Network Externalities a New Source of Market Failure?' (1995) 17 Research in Law and Economics 1.
48. J. Church and N. Gandal, 'Complementary Network Externalities and Technology Adoption' (1993) 11 International Journal of Industrial Organization 239.
49. R. Schmalensee, 'Antitrust Issues in Schumpeterian Industries' (2000) 90 American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings) 192, 193
50. D. Evans and R. Schmalensee, 'Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries', www.nber.org/books/innovation2/evans 5-1-01.pdf.
51. J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Harper Collins, 1984) p. 82.
52. D. Teece and M. Coleman, 'The Meaning of Monopoly: Antitrust Analysis in High Technology Industries' (1998) Antitrust Bulletin 801.
53. G. Ramello, 'Copyright and Antitrust Issues' (2002) 114 LIUC Papers in Economics.
54. W. Tom, 'Background Note' OECD Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights (1998) 23.
55. G. J. Werden, 'Network Effects and Conditions of Entry: Lessons from the Microsoft Case' (2001) 68 Antitrust Law Journal 87.
56. G. Saloner and A. Shepard, 'Adoption of New Technologies with Network Effects: An Empirical Examination of the Adoption of Automatic Teller Machines' (1995) 26 Rand Journal of Economics 479.
57. N. Gandal, G. Greenstein and D. Salant, 'Adaptations and Orphans in the Early Microcomputer Market', (1999) 47 Journal of Industrial Economics 87.
58. W. E. Cohen, 'Competition and Foreclosure in the Context of Installed Base and Compatibility Effects' (1996) 64 Antitrust Law Journal 535, 541.
59. I. Govaere, The Use and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in EC Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 1996).
60. K. Arrow, 'Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources to Invention', in R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962).
61. F. Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial and Market Structure and Economic Performance (Houghton Mifflin, 3rd edn, 1990) p. 637.
62. B. Dumont and P. Holmes, 'The Scope of Intellectual Property Rights and their Interface with Competition Law and Policy: Divergent Paths to the Same Goal?' Economics of Innovation and New Technology (2002) 11(2) 149-62.
63. R. Merges, 'Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools', in R. Dreyfuss, D. Leenheer Zimmerman and H. First (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 123 at 124.
64. S. Breyer, 'The Limits of Copyright' (1970) 84 Harvard Law Review 281.
65. R. Langlois, 'Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities' (1999) University of Connecticut Working Papers 1999-07.
66. L. Kaplow, 'The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: An Appraisal' (1983) Harvard Law Review 1813, 1823-9.
67. C. Shapiro, 'Setting Compatibility Standards: Cooperation or Collusion' in Dreyfuss, Zimmerman and First (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries. (1994) 62 Tennessee Law Review 75.
68. E. Kitch, 'The Nature and Function of the Patent System' (1977) 20 Journal of Law and Economics 265-90.
69. C. Matutes, P. Regibeau and K. Rockett, 'Optimal Patent Design and Diffusion of Innovations' (1996) 27 Rand Journal of Economics 60.
70. R. P. Merges and R. R. Nelson, 'Market Structure and Technical Advance: The Role of Patent Scope Decisions', in T. Jorde and D. Teece, (eds.) Antitrust, Innovation and Competitiveness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) 244
71. G. Stiglitz, Address to the US FTC Hearings on Global Competition and Innovation, (1996) FTC Report, Ch. VI, p.6.
72. M. Heller and R. Eisenberg, 'Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research'(1998) 280 Science 698, 699.
73. R. Merges, 'Intellectual Property Rights and Bargaining Breakdown: The Case of Blocking Patents' (1994) 62 Tennessee Law Review 75.
74. J. Ordover, 'A Patent System for Both Diffusion and Exclusion' (1991) Vol. 5, No. 1 Journal of Economic Perspectives 430.