2345彩票专家导航|IP and Competition Policy

本文来源://www.gqrcn.com/a/www.qlzq.com.cn/

彩票走势网 www.gqrcn.com,1、安徽省合肥市公安局强制戒毒所地址:安徽省合肥市新站区临泉路罗马花园二期9幢14号门面联系电话:0551-42305712、安徽省芜湖市疾病预防控制中心地址:安徽省芜湖市镜湖区九华山中路178号联系电话:0553-38741263、安徽省蚌埠市第四人民医院(第二门诊)地址:安徽省蚌埠市龙子湖区联系电话:0552-20791204、安徽省蚌埠市第四人民医院地址:安徽是蚌埠市禹会区东海路189号联系电话:0552-40706235、安徽省淮南市精神病院(第二门诊)地址:安徽省淮南市田家庵区中铁十局三公司医院联系电话:0554-21106026、安徽省淮南市精神病医院地址:安徽省淮南市谢家集区卧龙山路联系电话:0554-56790287、安徽省马鞍山市疾病预防控制中心地址:安徽省马鞍山市江东大道849号联系电话:0555-83676308、安徽省淮北市疾病预防控制中心地址:安徽省淮北市淮海路105号疾病预防控制中心美沙酮门诊联系电话:0561-30216279、安徽省铜陵市疾病预防控制中心地址:安徽省铜陵市义安大道北段935号联系电话:0562-286777610、安徽省黄山市第二人民医院地址:安徽省黄山市屯溪区戴震路72号联系电话:0559-257679611、安徽省阜阳市精神病医院地址:安徽省阜阳市颍州区文兴路2号联系电话:0558-256665012、安徽省宿州市疾病预防控制中心联系电话:0557-3032373●更低价格,公益悦读,携手禁毒。

Intellectual property (IP) allows consumers to make choices between competing entrepreneurs, and the goods and services they sell. Therefore, IP is inherently pro-competitive as it ensures the protection of differentiated, intangible business assets.

Without IP, less efficient manufacturers and service providers would try to lure clients by copying the goods and services of more efficient competitors. The latter would lose any incentive to improve or to offer new products and services. Society as a whole would lose. But IP only performs that crucial role of ensuring competition when it protects genuine differences.

(Photo: iStockphoto.com/petesaloutos)

The interface between IP and competition policy can arise from the following sets of issues:

Too much IP: When IP is unduly extended so as to grant exclusivity over non-differentiating features (such as patents for technical features that do not qualify as inventions and trademarks for common, non-distinctive words) it is anti-competitive.

Too little IP: When efficient enforcement means are not available or when genuinely differentiating features cannot be protected, imitation follows.

IP in the right dosage: It is inherently pro-competitive but sometimes IP in the right dosage (neither too much nor too little), can generate an embarrassment to consumer’s right of free choice. This happens when IP rights are abused, or used in a way contrary to the objectives of the Law. It may also happen that IP in the right dosage can be associated with certain circumstances that make it difficult, impossible or inconvenient for competitors to seek alternative ways of attracting consumers. This is the case, for example, when patented technologies become industrial standards, or when the obtaining of test data implies the risk to the health and well-being of humans and animals. In the first case, it is impossible for competitors to create alternative, different technologies. In the second case, duplicating tests to obtain the same data causes unnecessary and socially unjustified harm.

Research

Studies and surveys

  • Survey on IP, Joint R&D and Competition (June 2015) PDF, WIPO Survey on IP, Joint R&D and Competition (June 2015)
  • WIPO Survey on the Antitrust Dimension of IP Licensing Agreements in Support of Technology Transfer (March 2015) PDF, WIPO Survey on the Antitrust Dimension of IP Licensing Agreements in Support of Technology Transfer (March 2015)
  • Patents and Small Participants in the Smartphone Industry (January 2015) PDF, Patents and Small Participants in the Smartphone Industry (January 2015)
  • An Overview of Cade's Recent Jurisprudence regarding IP (December 2014) PDF, An Overview of Cade's Recent Jurisprudence regarding Intellectual Property (December 2014)
  • Study on Patent Pools and Antitrust - A Comparative Analysis (March 2014) PDF, Study on Patent Pools and Antitrust - A Comparative Analysis (March 2014)
  • Study on Copyright, Competition and Development (December 2013) PDF, Survey on Technology Transfer Agreements and Antitrust
  • Survey on Technology Transfer Agreements and Antitrust (December 2013) PDF, Survey on Technology Transfer Agreements and Antitrust
  • Study on refusals to license IP Rights (August 2013) PDF, Study on IP license rights rejections
  • Study on the impact of the acquisition and use of patents on the smartphone industry (publicly released by WIPO in June 2013) PDF, Study on the impact of patent usage and purchase on the smartphone industry
  • Study on the Anti-Competitive Enforcement of IP Rights: Sham Litigation (April, 2012) PDF, Study on anti-Competitive enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights: sham litigation
  • Survey on Compulsory Licenses Granted by WIPO Member States to Address Anti-Competitive Uses of IP Rights (October 2011) PDF, Survey on compulsory licenses issued by WIPO member states to address anti-competitive usage of intellectual property rights
  • Survey on Measures to Address the Interface between Antitrust and Franchising Agreements (June 2011) PDF, Survey on measures to address the interface between antitrust and franchising agreements
  • Analysis of the Economic/Legal Literature on the Effects of IP Rights as a Barrier to Entry (January 2012) PDF, Analysis of the economic and legal scientific literature on the results of intellectual property rights as a barriers to entry
  • Interaction of Agencies Dealing with IP and Competition Law: Summary of Replies of Member States (June 2011) PDF, Interaction of bodies dealing with intellectual property and competition law
  • Studies on the Interface between Exhaustion of IP Rights and Competition Law (April 2012) PDF, Studies on the Interface between Exhaustion of IP Rights and Competition Law
  • IP and Competition as Complementary Policies: A Test Using an Ordered Probit Model (2007) PDF, IP and competition as complementary policies

Events

National seminars

Organized to deepen the understanding of the interface between IP and competition law and facilitate the dialogue among national governmental agencies.

International roundtables

To enable a dialogue between national IP offices and competition authorities of the same region or the same group of countries.

Cooperation

National competition and IP authorities in Brazil and Chile have recently signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) concerning technical cooperation and information sharing.

The discussions leading up to the signing of such MOUs are important to ensure that both authorities understand the interaction between IP and competition law and the risks associated with too much or too little IP. For example, in many countries, IP standards are established by parliaments, but IP authorities invariably keep a broad authority of discretion in assessing registrability. Also, in enforcing antitrust law, national competition agencies are frequently confronted with IP-related issues.

The scope of the technical cooperation outlined in MOUs between these authorities may cover:

  • Exchange of technical information and knowledge between the respective technical bodies;
  • Consultancy services - for the definition of procedural routines, guidelines and standards in the joint treatment of mergers or anti-competitive practices which involve intellectual property;
  • Studies - on the relationship and interface between intellectual property and antitrust;
  • Training - of human resources from both entities on IP and competition policy issues deemed relevant;
  • Promotion and information dissemination– of the standards and principles of IP and free competition, or publicizing the respective functions of both authorities among consumers and users of their services
  • Draft proposed regulations - on the basis of analyses and studies, which lead, within the scope of the Agreement, to integrated measures for case resolution.

WIPO can assist IP offices from member states in developing such agreements.

For more information, contact us.

External links

福建11选5走势图基本 青海快3开奖结果 快三最容易中奖的打法 体彩开奖结果排列5 广东十一选五现场直播
五星时时彩杀号软件 浙江11选五走势图 网上购买11选5 新疆时时彩开奖号码走 双色球红球7个算法公式