Refusals to Deal in Information and Communications Technology IAN EAGLES University of Auckland BILETA 2004 DURHAM.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Name / Date 1 Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Competition.
Advertisements

KSTCD Branch/HRD Section/TrainForTrade & STICT Branch/ ICT Analysis Section1 Module 2 Legal validity of data messages.
Restraints to competition organized by the State Prevent, control, assess, suppress? Bruno Lasserre, Chairman, Conseil de la concurrence American Bar Association,
IP rights and competition law: Friends or foes? Etienne Wéry Attorney at the bars of Paris and Brussels Lecturer at Robert Schuman University (Strasbourg)
INTRODUCTION INTO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Marko Jovanovic, LL.M. MASTER IN EUROPEAN INTEGRATION Private International Law in the.
SG Amicus Brief in Trinko *Views are the personal views of the presenter only and are not necessarily those of his employer.
Sam Pieters International Relations Unit DG COMP 12/11/2012 Break out session 1: State owned enterprises and competition neutrality.
Tentative Exploration by SAIC on Regulating the Abuse of IPR to Exclude and Restrict Competition Yang Jie September 16, 2013 State Administration for Industry.
National symposium on Competition law: Evolution and Transition, 2012 Competition Policy for IP Issues Pradeep S Mehta Secretary General, CUTS International.
Charles River Associates Some Economics of Refusal to Supply William Bishop Brussels, 17 June2005 The Modernization of Article 28 GCLC Conference.
Rome II Regulation Conflict rules for torts. Rome II Regulation The Regulation defines: the conflict-of-law rules applicable to non- contractual obligations.
© 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license.
Joost Haans Antitrust Section Corp. Legal 22 May 2009 Resale Price Maintenance - Time for change? -
Police and the Law 1 1 Police and the Constitution 10.1 Chapter 10 Police and the Law Chapter 10 Police and the Law.
1 Is there a conflict between competition law and intellectual property rights? Edward Whitehorn Head, Competition Affairs Branch Carrie Tang Assistant.
Clearance of rights for availability on demand of heritage feature films RAI CINEMA EXPERIENCE DIFFICULTIES IN RIGHTS CLEARANCE FOR FILMS PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Sales and Consumer Issues Objective Interpret sales contracts and warranties within the rights and law of consumers. REGULATION OF SALES.
Click to edit Master title style Digitalisation and Beyond: Media freedom in a new reality Professor Katrin Nyman-Metcalf Chair of Law and Technology.
“Equal and open access to the market in terms of economic integration and increased competition ” Astana Forum, 24 May 2013 Presented by Hassan Qaqaya,
London 22 Nov 2005 Modernization of Article 82 Lars-Hendrik Röller * Chief Competition Economist European Commission CLA and BIICL Conference on Article.
 The Community authorities follow the attribution of jurisdiction in Article 81 of the TFEU (formerly Article 65 TA): Rome I, Rome II and Rome III Regulations.
European Commission – Directorate General for Competition Dr. K. Mehta, Director, Cartels A PRIMER ON ANTI-TRUST POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION UCL – Louvain-la-Neuve.
GLOBAL VS NATIONAL IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: BUSINESS MODELS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MODELS (ON THE EXAMPLE OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT IN RUSSIA) IP and.
Types of Law II OBE-118, Section 3 Fall 2004 John McKinsey Today we finish developing a good understanding of the three-dimensional spider web known as.
Introductory course on Competition and Regulation Pál Belényesi University of Verona October 2006.
 How firms compete Easy as PIE: Presenting in English 09/03/2011.
ECONOMICS AND THE COMPETITION RULES John Vickers Oxford University British Institute of International and Comparative Law 12 September 2007.
Finding a PPP Partner Essential EU Law Considerations Bernard Wilson Maribor, 18 January 2005 Bernard Wilson Maribor, 18 January 2005.
 “Market power” is the power of company to control the market for its product.  The law does allow for market monopolies when a patent is issued. During.
1 FRAND COMMITMENTS AND EU COMPETITION LAW Thomas Kramler European Commission, DG Competition (The views expressed are not necessarily those of the European.
Competition Policy and Law Presentation to Study Tour for Russian Member Universities of the Virtual Institute Network 26 March 2009.
© A. Kur IP in Transition – Proposals for Amendment of TRIPS Annette Kur, MPI Munich.
Essential Facility and Refusal to deal. Property Rights & Antitrust Antonio Nicita.
International Summer Seminar „Copyright in motion“ Essential facility as an intersection between Competition Law and IP Law Barbora Kralickova Institute.
CAPACITY BUILDING – INDIA; ABUSE OF DOMINANCE Eleanor M. Fox Professor, New York University School of Law CUTS-CIRC New Delhi 18 Jan 06.
CHAPTER 3 INTERNATIONAL LAW DAVIDSON, KNOWLES & FORSYTHE Business Law: Cases and Principles in the Legal Environment (8 th Ed.)
1 WIPO-KIPO-KIPA IP Panorama Business School, October 6 to 10, 2008 IP Strategies in Standards Setting Tomoko Miyamoto Senior Counsellor, Patent Law Section.
Competition Law // Sector specific regulation Pál Belényesi University of Verona October 2006.
The dominance concept: new wine in old bottles Miguel de la Mano * Member of the Chief Economist’s Office DG COMP, European Commission FTC/DOJ Hearings.
ABA China Inside and Out September , Beijing The interface between competition law and intellectual property Nicholas Banasevic, DG Competition,
IP Related Competition Issues Prof. Dr. Peter Chrocziel Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Frankfurt am Main DF
Counterfactual Analysis in Predation Cases 12 June 2013.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Monopoly Power: Getting it and keeping it US Perspective Sharis Pozen, Partner ACCE Seminar 13 May 2008.
EU Discussion Paper on Exclusionary Abuses Michael Albers European Commission DG Competition 54th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting Washington DC, 30 March.
Behavioral Economics and Abuse of Dominance Nicolas Petit (ULg) Vienna Competition Conference 2010 – Industry v. Competition? 9 June 2010, Vienna.
Patent Pools – Issues of Dominance and Royalty Setting Marleen Van Kerckhove ABA Brown Bag Presentation March 20 th, 2007.
Published by Flat World Knowledge, Inc. © 2014 by Flat World Knowledge, Inc. All rights reserved. Your use of this work is subject to the License Agreement.
Exercise of IP rights as an abusive behaviour under EU antitrust law Christian Vollrath European Commission DG Competition 1.
Standards and competition policy EU-China Workshop on Application of Anti-monopoly Law in Intellectual Property Area Changsha, 11. – 12. March 2010 Peter.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
The Definition of the Relevant Market Lecturer: Professor Huang Yong Law School of UIBE UIBECLC Dalian, China,June 11, 2010.
Intellectual Property Law versus Anti-Monopoly Law EU-China IPR2 Project Conference on intellectual property related issues in the judicial application.
The Economic Environment of Business – Lecture 5 Competition Policy.
International Intellectual Property Prof. Manheim Spring, 2007 Patent Compulsory Licensing Copyright © 2007.
Chapter 7 The Legal Environment of International Trade Twomey, Business Law and the Regulatory Environment (14th Ed.)
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872. LAW Law means a ‘set of rules’. Law means a ‘set of rules’. “Law includes all the rules and principles which regulate our relations.
TRADE SECRETS workshop I © 2009 Prof. Charles Gielen EU-China Workshop on the Protection of Trade Secrets Shanghai June 2009.
Overview of presentation
European Union Law Week 10.
EU Competition Rules for Technology Transfer Agreements
Private International law Sciences Po Paris Spring 2017
Professor Wang Xiaoye Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Law Institute
Unit 10 Antitrust and Information Policy
UK Government: Relations between branches Key terms
“Revisiting Abuse of Dominance & IPRs: Emerging Jurisprudence of the Indian Competition Law” “Plenary 2: A comparative perspective to IPR and Competition:
INTRODUCTION INTO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
“The Interest to Promote Competition Vs
Review Slides – Unit 3 Chapter # Questions
Essentials of the legal environment today, 5e
Presentation transcript:

Refusals to Deal in Information and Communications Technology IAN EAGLES University of Auckland BILETA 2004 DURHAM

THE PROBLEM Refusals to Deal in ICT The Wider Interface Debate Talking Past Each Other Formalism versus Empiricism Law versus Economics Intent versus Result Action versus Inaction

REFUSALS TO LICENSE Unilateral or Collusive? Explicit or Implied? Absolute or Conditional? Sustained by: - intellectual property - contract with third parties - technological locks

REGULATORY CHOICES Retreat Before the IP Right Presumption of Vice Presumption of Virtue Regulatory Neutrality -between legal rights -between high and low technnology -between market players Case by Case Analysis

THE SOUNDBITE WARS IP and Competition Law Share Same Goal Sacrosanct Property Versus Regulated Monopoly

MORE SOUNDBITES What The Law Creates It Shall Not Destroy - statutory versus non statutory - property versus contract -property versus obligation -expansion of rights Regulation Equals Destruction

MORE SOUNDBITES Rights Define Markets - legal monopoly = market power -IP rights never create market power -right to use implies right to refuse

YET MORE SOUNDBITES Different Markets Need Different Rules -IP is more vulnerable than other rights -time and technology will rescue us -the judge as science fiction writer -fast change is double edged

LEGAL EXITS FROM THE ECONOMIC MAZE? Inside or Outside the Scope of Grant Exclusionary Intent Delegitimises Refusal Cross Market Objectives

SCOPE OF GRANT TESTS Sword or Shield? Absolute or Presumptive? Evidentiary or Substantive? Expressly granted or deduced penumbra? Trans Market Leverage -substitutability versus complementarity -mapping right against market

INTENT BASED TESTS Predatory purpose as an abuse of IP right Presumptive or Absolute? Past Virtue Negates Present Right Achievable Result Versus Wishful Thought Hypothetical Non Monopolist -parsing the statute in Australia and NZ -legitimate business explanation in US -subset of essential facilities, or -independent source of liability

The Search for Unifying Principle in European and UK Law Four illustrative cases -Volvo v Veng -Magill -IMS -Intel Exceptional Circumstances or Essential Facility?

Exceptional Circumstances Prediction or Rule? Parsing Magill Cumulative or Alternative? The Forensic Context -the unlovely defendant -infringement versus enforcement -interlocutory indeterminism

IP as an Essential Facility? American Genesis Antitrust before Economics Four Part Test - control by monopolist -duplication not feasible -access by rival blocked -no harm to facility owner Collective or individual control?

Beating EF Back into its Box Ramping Up the Control Threshold -downstream competition hobbled or eliminated? -permanence of obstacle? Unwillingness to Find Constructive Refusal Actual Access Defeats Claim Courts’ Unwillingness to Act as Quasi Regulator

Essential Facilities in EU Law Refusals to Deal under ART 82 -dominant firm -prior dealing Limited Powers of Direct Regulation Port and Ferry Cases

Essential Facilities in EU Law continued Judicial Correctives -Night Services -Oscar Bronner Use in IP Context -Tierce Ladbroke -IMS

Essential Facilities: A Conceptual and Practical Dead End An Economics Free Zone? Duplication Impossible to Rule Out in Technology Intensive Markets IP Embedded in Industry Standard De Facto Deference to Right Holder Formal Evasion Disguises Substantive Breach

CONCLUSION IP is not special Define markets not rights Measure market power Avoid retreat into formalism Certainty comes at a price Inaction is not better than Action