Patents and Antitrust: Application to Adjacent Markets

We examine the intersection of patents and antitrust where a patent holder uses the monopoly power it possesses in the market for a patented product to exclude competitors in an adjacent market and attempt to monopolize or monopolize the adjacent market. The present scheme for awarding patents cannot judge when the issuance of a patent will lead to the appropriate balance between innovation and economic efficiency. Where a patent holder’s invention uses an interface with adjacent products, the patent holder may be tempted to extend its patent monopoly into adjacent markets that depend upon the interface with the patented invention. Economic theory suggests that it is inappropriate to immunize a patent holder from antitrust liability when it attempts to extend its patent monopoly into adjacent markets because it could decrease consumer surplus. Courts have expressed their reluctance to scrutinize a patent holder’s innovations and design changes because of the potential benefits of the innovations and their reluctance to second-guess the marketplace. However, applying traditional antitrust principles, courts have found that monopolists could be liable for unlawfully extending their monopoly positions into adjacent markets in the areas of computer peripherals and software applications; aftermarkets for replacement parts, service and maintenance of durable goods; design changes to medical devices; and changes in drug formulas. While the patent laws provide a spur to innovation by granting limited monopoly rights, the antitrust laws curb the excessive reach of these monopoly rights by acting as a check on excessive expansion of the scope of the patent grant. Courts are the only participants in the legal process that have the competence to ensure that patents do not cause economic stagnation and harm by permitting a patent holder to extend its monopoly into an adjacent market. Consequently, courts should be willing to apply antitrust principles to cases involving the monopolization of interfaces through design changes

Power-Law Distributions in a Two-sided Market and Net Neutrality

"Net neutrality" often refers to the policy dictating that an Internet service provider (ISP) cannot charge content providers (CPs) for delivering their content to consumers. Many past quantitative models designed to determine whether net neutrality is a good idea have been rather equivocal in their conclusions. Here we propose a very simple two-sided market model, in which the types of the consumers and the CPs are {\em power-law distributed} --- a kind of distribution known to often arise precisely in connection with Internet-related phenomena. We derive mostly analytical, closed-form results for several regimes: (a) Net neutrality, (b) social optimum, (c) maximum revenue by the ISP, or (d) maximum ISP revenue under quality differentiation. One unexpected conclusion is that (a) and (b) will differ significantly, unless average CP productivity is very high

Crafting a Systematic Literature Review on Open-Source Platforms

This working paper unveils the crafting of a systematic literature review on open-source platforms. The high-competitive mobile devices market, where several players such as Apple, Google, Nokia and Microsoft run a platforms- war with constant shifts in their technological strategies, is gaining increasing attention from scholars. It matters, then, to review previous literature on past platforms-wars, such as the ones from the PC and game-console industries, and assess its implications to the current mobile devices platforms-war. The paper starts by justifying the purpose and rationale behind this literature review on open-source platforms. The concepts of open-source software and computer-based platforms were then discussed both individually and in unison, in order to clarify the core-concept of 'open-source platform' that guides this literature review. The detailed design of the employed methodological strategy is then presented as the central part of this paper. The paper concludes with preliminary findings organizing previous literature on open-source platforms for the purpose of guiding future research in this area.Comment: As presented in 10th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Systems, OSS 2014, San Jos\'e, Costa Rica, May 6-9, 201

Patents and Antitrust: Application to Adjacent Markets

We examine the intersection of patents and antitrust where a patent holder uses the monopoly power it possesses in the market for a patented product to exclude competitors in an adjacent market and attempt to monopolize or monopolize the adjacent market. The present scheme for awarding patents cannot judge when the issuance of a patent will lead to the appropriate balance between innovation and economic efficiency. Where a patent holder's invention uses an interface with adjacent products, the patent holder may be tempted to extend its patent monopoly into adjacent markets that depend upon the interface with the patented invention. Economic theory suggests that it is inappropriate to immunize a patent holder from antitrust liability when it attempts to extend its patent monopoly into adjacent markets because it could decrease consumer surplus. Courts have expressed their reluctance to scrutinize a patent holder's innovations and design changes because of the potential benefits of the innovations and their reluctance to second-guess the marketplace. However, applying traditional antitrust principles, courts have found that monopolists could be liable for unlawfully extending their monopoly positions into adjacent markets in the areas of computer peripherals and software applications; aftermarkets for replacement parts, service and maintenance of durable goods; design changes to medical devices; and changes in drug formulas. While the patent laws provide a spur to innovation by granting limited monopoly rights, the antitrust laws curb the excessive reach of these monopoly rights by acting as a check on excessive expansion of the scope of the patent grant. Courts are the only participants in the legal process that have the competence to ensure that patents do not cause economic stagnation and harm by permitting a patent holder to extend its monopoly into an adjacent market. Consequently, courts should be willing to apply antitrust principles to cases involving the monopolization of interfaces through design changes

Ipsographing the Dubject; or, The Contradictions of Twitter

Precise control of self-renewal and differentiation of progenitor cells into the cranial neural crest (CNC) pool ensures proper head development, guided by signaling pathways such as BMPs, FGFs, Shh and Notch. Here, we show that murine Sox2 plays an essential role in controlling progenitor cell behavior during craniofacial development. A "Conditional by Inversion" Sox2 allele (Sox2(COIN) ) has been employed to generate an epiblast ablation of Sox2 function (Sox2(EpINV) ). Sox2 (EpINV/+(H)) haploinsufficient and conditional (Sox2(EpINV/mosaic) ) mutant embryos proceed beyond gastrulation and die around E11. These mutant embryos exhibit severe anterior malformations, with hydrocephaly and frontonasal truncations, which could be attributed to the deregulation of CNC progenitor cells during their epithelial to mesenchymal transition. This irregularity results in an exacerbated and aberrant migration of Sox10(+) NCC in the branchial arches and frontonasal process of the Sox2 mutant embryos. These results suggest a novel role for Sox2 as a regulator of the epithelial to mesenchymal transitions (EMT) that are important for the cell flow in the developing head

"The trauma of competition": the entry of Air Products Inc. into the industrial gases business in Britain and continental Europe 1947-1970

The British Oxygen Company (BOC) had a virtual monopoly on the supply of industrial gases (e.g. oxygen and acetylene) on the British market through the 1950s, when it was finally challenged by an American-based company, Air Products. Air Products Limited (APL) was able to undercut BOCs position, overcoming high barriers to entry to gain significant market share in this sector, which shares some features of network industries. Factors in this success included conditions imposed by the Board of Trade, APL’s innovations, BOC’s slow response, and favourable market conditions. APL’s success had implications for the internationalisation of the industrial gases industry

Postmodern professions? The fragmentation of legal education and the legal profession

This article considers the institutional dimensions of professionalism and the legal profession's struggle with the challenges of post-modernity. An aspect of this is the Law Society's Training Framework Review (TFR) which promises changes to solicitors' education from 'cradle to grave'. The first part of the article analyses the structure and drivers of the TFR, their origins, and how they will be articulated. Secondly, the TFR is considered in the context of the political economy of higher education and its role in the new capitalism. Finally, we examine the potential effects of the TFR for the legal profession in the context of increasing practice segmentation and the threat of deprofessionalization, and also for the Law Society itself, whether it can retain a key role in the life course of the legal profession

A characteristics framework for Semantic Information Systems Standards

Semantic Information Systems (IS) Standards play a critical role in the development of the networked economy. While their importance is undoubted by all stakeholders—such as businesses, policy makers, researchers, developers—the current state of research leaves a number of questions unaddressed. Terminological confusion exists around the notions of “business semantics”, “business-to-business interoperability”, and “interoperability standards” amongst others. And, moreover, a comprehensive understanding about the characteristics of Semantic IS Standards is missing. The paper addresses this gap in literature by developing a characteristics framework for Semantic IS Standards. Two case studies are used to check the applicability of the framework in a “real-life” context. The framework lays the foundation for future research in an important field of the IS discipline and supports practitioners in their efforts to analyze, compare, and evaluate Semantic IS Standard

Justice Beyond Borders? Australia and the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being on 1 July 2002. A four-person team opened an office in The Hague and will collect reports and allegations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity until judges and a prosecutor are appointed towards the end of 2003. Although the court was heralded by many states and international lawyers as the most important positive development in international law since the formation of the United Nations, it did not get off to an auspicious start. The Bush administration was concerned that US military forces operating overseas would be particularly vulnerable to what it described as 'politicised' prosecutions. It therefore insisted that not only would it not be a part of the ICC, but also that it would not sanction the continuation of UN peacekeeping operations. Closer to home, the Australian Senate only ratified the ICC's founding treaty, the Rome Statute, after a bitter debate that split both the Liberal and National parties. This was the case even though the Howard government-and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in particular-had been a leading advocate of the court and ratification of the Rome Statute had been a Liberal Party election promise in 2001. The cost that Downer, and pro-ICC Attorney-General Daryl Williams had to pay in order to appease restive conservative backbenchers, the National Party, and an increasingly reluctant (and pro-US) Prime Minister and secure the ratification was a declaration that reaffirmed the primacy of the Australian judicial system over the ICC. The declaration insisted that no Australian would be prosecuted by the court without the consent of the Attomey-General, and asserted Australia's right to define what is meant by the crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We argue that although Downer and Williams should be commended for their commitment to international justice, the declaration attached to Australia's ratification was unnecessary and unhelpful. The first and third aspects of the declaration were unnecessary: the principle of complementarity enshrined in the Rome Statute means that the ICC already recognises the primacy of domestic jurisdiction, and the crimes covered are already considered to fall under universal jurisdiction, as the Nuremberg, Tokyo and more recent Pinochet trials showed (see Weller 1999). The second is unhelpful because it contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the Rome Statute. We will begin, then, by tracing the development of the ICC debate in Australian politics. In 1998, the government was an enthusiastic advocate of the court but by 2002 an alliance of an ardently pro-US Prime Minister, vocal right-wing parliamentarians and their supporters, and The Australian (and its foreign affairs editor Greg Sheridan in particular) combined to put ratification in doubt. Contrary to Prime Minister John Howard's claims, this debate was not well informed. Instead, it was characterised by hearsay, inaccuracy and scare-mongering. The subsequent section of the article demonstrates this by focusing on the background to, and creation of, the Rome Statute