5,793 research outputs found
The Logic & Limits of the Exceptional Circumstances Test in Magill and IMS Health
In this Article, we show that, in contrast to the Commission\u27s balancing approach in Microsoft, the ECJ\u27s narrow construction of the obligation to license IP under Article 82 of the EC Treaty is based on sound economics and constitutes appropriate public policy. The set of âexceptional circumstancesâ listed in Magill and IMS Health constitutes a reasonable implementation of the optimal legal standard for the assessment of refusals to licence IP: modified per se legality. In the IP context, an obligation to make property available is a requirement for compulsory licensing. The ECJ test limits compulsory licensing to those situations in which the prospective social benefits of licensing are large, while the negative effects of reducing the incentives to innovate are small. The ECJ test ensures that intervention is restricted to cases where the intervention is still likely to increase social welfare. The Commission\u27s test in Microsoft, being a balancing test, does not. As noted by Professor Gerardin, âbalancing ex ante vs. ex post efficiencies is obviously a very difficult process, which even the most sophisticated economists may find daunting. The risk of mistaken decisions is therefore high.
The Limitation of Intellectual Property in the Name of Competition
Intellectual property (âIPâ) is often credited with providing an incentive for inventors to develop their creativity. Through IP protection, inventors can recoup their investment and make a profit. That idea, which has inspired legislators worldwide, is currently challenged in the European case law on competition. In the last twenty years, five cases have limited, in the name of competition, the possibility for firms to use IP rights acquired in conformity with applicable laws. These cases are examined in this article. I analyze the scope of the emerging jurisprudence and investigate the arguments articulated, in support of their position, by the European instances involved
The Duty to license software in a dominant market position : the essential facility doctrine
Tutkielma kÀsittelee tietokoneohjelmistojen pakkolisensiointia mÀÀrÀÀvÀssÀ markkina-asemassa. Tutkielman erityisenÀ nÀkökulmana aiheeseen on se, onko Euroopan unionin oikeuden mukaan tietokoneohjelmistojen pakkolisensiointi mÀÀrÀÀvÀssÀ markkina-asemassa mahdollista ja jos on, niin mitkÀ tekijÀt vaikuttavat immateriaalioikeuksien pakkolisensiointivelvoitteeseen.
Tutkielma jakautuu viiteen pÀÀjaksoon, joista ensimmÀisessÀ esitellÀÀn tutkimusongelma sekÀ tutkielman rakenne tarkemmin. Toisessa pÀÀjaksossa kuvataan yleisellÀ tasolla tekijÀnoikeuden pÀÀperiaatteita, tietokoneohjelmistojen tekijÀnoikeussuojaa sekÀ tietokoneohjelmistoihin liittyviÀ erityispiirteitÀ ettÀ ilmiöitÀ. Kolmas jakso sisÀltÀÀ kuvauksen mÀÀrÀÀvÀn markkina-aseman vÀÀrinkÀytöstÀ Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 102 artiklan mukaan.
NeljĂ€s pÀÀjakso kĂ€sittelee pakkolisensiointia mÀÀrÀÀvĂ€ssĂ€ markkina-asemassa. Jakso jakaantuu neljÀÀn alajaksoon, joista ensimmĂ€isessĂ€ alajaksossa tarkastellaan immateriaalioikeuden ja kilpailuoikeuden vastakkainasettelua. Toinen alajakso sisĂ€ltÀÀ kuvauksen niin sanotusta olennainen toimintaedellytys-opista (âthe essential facility doctrineâ) sekĂ€ siitĂ€, kuinka immateriaalioikeuteen liittyvĂ€t tapaukset tulisi tulkita tĂ€mĂ€n opin mukaan. Kolmannessa alajaksossa tarkastellaan Euroopan unionin oikeuskĂ€ytĂ€ntöÀ ja sitĂ€ kuinka olennainen toimintaedellytys-oppi on kehittynyt oikeuskĂ€ytĂ€nnössĂ€ immateriaalioikeuksien osalta. NeljĂ€s alajakso sisĂ€ltÀÀ erityisiĂ€ huomioita pakkolisensioinnista, kun kyseessĂ€ ovat immateriaalioikeudet.
Tutkielman viides ja viimeinen pÀÀjakso sisÀltÀÀ johtopÀÀtelmÀn siitÀ, voidaanko mÀÀrÀÀvÀssÀ markkina-asemassa oleva yhtiö velvoittaa myöntÀmÀÀn lisenssi tietokoneohjelmistoonsa sekÀ esitetÀÀn joitakin aiheeseen liittyviÀ avoimia kysymyksiÀ jatkotutkimusten kannalta.
Tutkimuksessa kÀydÀÀn lÀpi aiheeseen liittyvÀÀ lainsÀÀdÀntöÀ ja oikeuskÀytÀntöÀ sekÀ aiheesta tuotettua oikeustieteellistÀ kirjallisuutta, joiden perusteella pyritÀÀn tulkitsemaan millÀ edellytyksin immateriaalioikeuksia voidaan pakkolisensioida.
Tutkimuksen mukaan olemassa olevan oikeuskÀytÀnnön valossa mÀÀrÀÀvÀssÀ markkina-asemassa oleva yhtiö voidaan velvoittaa lisensioimaan tietokoneohjelmistoja tiettyjen edellytysten tÀyttyessÀ
Advocate General Jacobs\u27 Contribution to Competition Law
This Article focuses on some of AG Jacobs\u27 opinions regarding matters of competition, starting with his contributions on the meaning of âundertakingâ in Höfner and AOK, under a combination of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (âEC Treatyâ) Articles 82 and 86 (special and exclusive rights), and Risparmio, under Articles 86 and 87 (State aids). It does not deal with many other opinions he wrote on the meaning of âundertaking,â such as those in Albany and Pavlov. Finally, it discusses his opinions on refusals to deal in Bronner and Syfait, along with a selection of other judgments on the topic
Recommended from our members
New and emerging technologies for the treatment of inherited retinal diseases: a horizon scanning review.
The horizon scanning review aimed to identify new and emerging technologies in development that have the potential to slow or stop disease progression and/or reverse sight loss in people with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). Potential treatments were identified using recognized horizon scanning methods. These included a combination of online searches using predetermined search terms, suggestions from clinical experts and patient and carer focus groups, and contact with commercial developers. Twenty-nine relevant technologies were identified. These included 9 gene therapeutic approaches, 10 medical devices, 5 pharmacological agents, and 5 regenerative and cell therapies. A further 11 technologies were identified in very early phases of development (typically phase I or pre-clinical) and were included in the final report to give a complete picture of developments 'on the horizon'. Clinical experts and patient and carer focus groups provided helpful information and insights, such as the availability of specialised services for patients, the potential impacts of individual technologies on people with IRDs and their families, and helped to identify additional relevant technologies. This engagement ensured that important areas of innovation were not missed. Most of the health technologies identified are still at an early stage of development and it is difficult to estimate when treatments might be available. Further, well designed trials that generate data on efficacy, applicability, acceptability, and costs of the technologies, as well as the long-term impacts for various conditions are required before these can be considered for adoption into routine clinical practice
- âŠ