EC competition policy and IPRs

The Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 37-124

  Anderman, Steven D ^a   Schmidt, Hedvig ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927000664     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511495205.003     Document Type: Chapter

References (92)

1. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207.
2. S. Anderman and J. Kallaugher, Technology Transfer and the New EC Competition Rules: Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernisation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) Ch. 9.
3. Tetra Pak Rausing SA v. Commission (Tetra Pak I) [1990] ECR II-309.
4. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207.
5. Michelin v. Commisssion [1983] ECR 3461.
6. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207.
7. Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461.
8. Hoffman La Roche v. Commission [1978] ECR 1137.
9. Hilti v. Commission [1994] ECR I-667.
10. Hugin Kassaregister AB v. Commssion [1979] ECR 1869, [1979] 3 CMLR 345.
11. AB Volvo v. Erik Veng [1988] ECR 6211, [1989] 4 CMLR 122.
12. IBM Undertaking [1984] 3 CMLR 147.
13. Sealink/B&I Holyhead: Interim Measures [1992] 5 CMLR 255.
14. British Midland v. Aer Lingus [1992] OJ L96/34 4 CMLR M17.
15. London European-Sabena [1988] OJ L31/47, [1989] 4 CMLR 662.
16. S. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights, the Regulation of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) 166.
17. Tetra Pak Rausing v. Commission [1994] ECR II-755, [1997] 4 CMLR 726.
18. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207.
19. Hoffman La Roche v. Commission [1978] ECR 1137.
20. B&I Line v. Sealink Harbour [1992] 5 CMLR 255.
21. Oscar Bronner GMbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint [1998] ECR 1-7791.
22. I. Forester, 'Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights in Europe: a Rare Case of Aberrant Intellectual Property Rights', Paper presented to DOJ/FTC Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge Based Economy: Comparative Law Topics (May 22, 2002) 15.
23. Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461.
24. Joliet, Monopolization and Abuse of a Dominant Position: A Comparative Study of American and European Approaches to the Control of Economic Power (The Hague, 1970).
25. Temple Lang, 'Monopolisation and the Definition of Abuse of a Dominant Position under Article 86 EEC Treaty' (1970) 16 Common Market Law Review 345.
26. Tetra Pak v. Commission [1990] ECR II-309.
27. RTE, ITV and BBC v. Commission [1995] ECR I-743.
28. Hilti v. Commission [1994] ECR I-667.
29. Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461.
30. Hoffman La Roche [1979] ECR 461.
31. Case C-62/86 AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission, [1991] ECR I-359.
32. Case C-238/87 AB Volvo v. Erik Veng [1998] ECR 6211, [1989] 4 CMLR 122.
33. J. Venit and J. Kallaugher, 'Essential Facilities: A Comparative Law Approach' (1994) Fordham Corporate Law Institute 315 at 328.
34. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207 para. 301.
35. Hoffman La Roche [1979] ECR 461.
36. Hilti v. Commission [1994] ECR I-667.
37. Tetra Pak Rausing v. Commission [1994] ECR II-755.
38. AKZO v. Commission [1991] ECR 1-3359.
39. Sirena v. Eda [1971] ECR 3169.
40. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207 at para. 249.
41. Parke Davis v. Probel [1968] ECR 55.
42. General Motors Continental v. Commission [1976] ECR 1367 at 1379.
43. E. Fox, 'Monopolization and Dominance in the United States and the European Community: Efficiency, Opportunity, and Fairness' (1986) 61 Notre Dame Law Review 981 at 993.
44. T. Kauper, 'Article 86, Excessive Prices and Refusals to Deal' (1991) 59 Antitrust Law Journal 441.
45. V. Korah, 'No Duty to License Independent Repairers to Make Spare Parts: The Renault, Volvo and Bayer Henneke Cases' (1988) European Intellectual Property Review 381 at 383.
46. I. Govaere, The Use and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in EC Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1996) Chapter 2.
47. G. Tritton, Intellectual Property in Europe (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1995).
48. V. Korah, EC Competition Law and Practice (Oxford: Hart Publications, 5th edn) at p. 99.
49. G. Friden, 'Recent developments in EEC Intellectual Property Law: The Distinction Between Existence and Exercise Revisited' (1989) 26 Common Market Law Review 193 at 211.
50. D. Goyder, EC Competition Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn 2003) 312-14.
51. Tetra Pak v. Commission [1990] ECR II-309.
52. United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 207 para. 301.
53. AKZO v. Commission [1993] 5 CMLR 215.
54. Hoffman La Roche v. Commission [1979] ECR 461.
55. ICI and Commercial Solvents v. Commission [1974] ECR 223
56. Tetra Pak International v. Commission [1994] ECR II-755.
57. Tetra Pak International v. Commission [1996] ECR-1-5 951 para. 37.
58. Sega and Nintendo, EC Commission 1997.
59. Oscar Bronner GMbH & Co. KG v. Mediaprint [1998] ECR 1-7791.
60. Commercial Solvents v. Commission [1974] ECR 223
61. Centre Belge d'Etudes de Marché (CBEM) v. Télémarketing [1985] ECR 3261.
62. S. Anderman, EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: The Regulation of Innovation (Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1998).
63. R. Peritz, Competition Policy in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
64. J. Harris, Property and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)
65. I. Rahnasto, Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects and Antitrust Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
66. D. Rushe, 'Microsoft Braced for Big Fines by EU', Sunday Times 21 March 2004.
67. R. Stillman, 'Review of the Microsoft Decision', Speech at 'Opening Windows: The Economics of the Microsoft Case', Lexecon, Conrad Hotel Brussels, 19 May 2004.
68. M. Dolmans and T. Graf, 'Analysis of Tying Under Article 82 EC: The European Commission's MICROSOFT Decision in Perspective' (2004) 27(2) World Competition 225
69. C-53/92P Hilti AG v. Commission [1994] ECR I-666
70. C-311/84 Télémarketing v. CLT [1985] ECR 3261.
71. D. Lawsky, 'EU Set to Rule Against Microsoft', Reuters, 23 March 2004 (www.reuters.com).
72. Hilti v. Commission [1991] ECR II-1439, [1992] 4 CMLR 16, para. 102-14.
73. Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission [1996] ECR I-5951, [1997] 4 CMLR 662, para. 34.
74. Tetra Pak Rausing v. Commission [1994] ECR II-755, [1997] 4 CMLR 726, para. 82.
75. D. M. Smith, 'EU Antitrust Ruling won't affect Microsoft or its Customers', 17 March 2004, Gartner Research (http://www4.gartner.com/Display Document?doc_cd=120139 (24/03/04)).
76. Lucazeau v. SACEM [1989] ECR 2811.
77. Sirena v. Eda [1971] ECR 3169.
78. Ideal Standard [1994] ECR 1-2789.
79. Consten Grundig v. Commission [1966] ECR 299.
80. Coditel 11 [1982] ECR 3381 at para. 14
81. Parke Davis v. Probel and Centrafarm [1968] ECR 55, [1969] CMLR 47.
82. Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft [1971] ECR 489 at para. 6.
83. Polypropylene [1988] 4 CMLR 34 para. 99.
84. Corinne Bodson v. Pompes Funèbres des Régions Libérées SA [1985] ECR 2479
85. I. Forrester, 'Competition Structures for the 21st Century' in (1994) Fordham Corporate Law Institute at 505 and 405.
86. Forrester and Noralt 'The Laicisation of Community Law Self Help and the Rule of Reason' [1984] 21 Common Market Law Review 11.
87. D. Gonzales, 'Some Reflections on the Notion of Ancillary Restraints under EC Competition Law' [1995] Fordham Corporate Law Institute 325 at 350-4.
88. A. Jones and B. Sufrin, EC Competition Law, Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p. 850.
89. Radio Telefis Eireann v. Commission [1995] ECR I-743, [1995] 4 CMLR 718.
90. C-333/94P Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission [1996] ECR I-5951, [1997] 4 CMLR 662.
91. R. Whish, Competition Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 5th edn, 2003), p. 255.
92. Case T-395/94 Atlantic Container Line AB v Commission [2002] ECR II-875, [2002] 4 CMLR 1008.