Competition Law and Policy on Issues Relating to Standard Essential Patents
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The relationship between competition law and IP law has been debated for a long time. Although there are some existing presumptive tensions between the two bodies of law when the exercise of IP rights (IPRs) conflicts with the goal of competition law, many believe that both laws have the same objective – to encourage innovation and improve competition, thereby maximising welfare in society. In particular, with the recent rapid globalisation, it has become important to understand different competition regimes in order not to infringe their competition rules, and this is especially true for multinational undertakings that exercise IPRs in the global market. In addition, over recent decades standardisation has become crucial in areas involving technology, and the issues arising from standard setting organisations (SSOs) and related topics, such as standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments, have led to theoretical and practical arguments in the field of competition law because the number of cases concerning this topic has increased noticeably in many competition jurisdictions. Furthermore, a comparative study of competition laws, focusing on the approaches in the United States, the European Union and Korea, may help to develop harmonised competition rules on this subject. In one particular case, the Korean competition authority, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), has imposed a cease-and -desist order and a surcharge on Qualcomm for its abuse of market dominance and its unfair business practice. Considering the importance of new economy issues, this article aims at discussing recent developments in competition law and policy on IPRs as they relate to SSOs and the topics of SEPs and FRAND commitments.
Abstract
The relationship between competition law and IP law has been debated for a long time. Although there are some existing presumptive tensions between the two bodies of law when the exercise of IP rights (IPRs) conflicts with the goal of competition law, many believe that both laws have the same objective – to encourage innovation and improve competition, thereby maximising welfare in society. In particular, with the recent rapid globalisation, it has become important to understand different competition regimes in order not to infringe their competition rules, and this is especially true for multinational undertakings that exercise IPRs in the global market. In addition, over recent decades standardisation has become crucial in areas involving technology, and the issues arising from standard setting organisations (SSOs) and related topics, such as standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments, have led to theoretical and practical arguments in the field of competition law because the number of cases concerning this topic has increased noticeably in many competition jurisdictions. Furthermore, a comparative study of competition laws, focusing on the approaches in the United States, the European Union and Korea, may help to develop harmonised competition rules on this subject. In one particular case, the Korean competition authority, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), has imposed a cease-and -desist order and a surcharge on Qualcomm for its abuse of market dominance and its unfair business practice. Considering the importance of new economy issues, this article aims at discussing recent developments in competition law and policy on IPRs as they relate to SSOs and the topics of SEPs and FRAND commitments.
참고문헌 (34)
- ABA, "Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook" (2007), ABA Publishing
- ABA, "Handbook on the Antitrust Aspects of Standards Setting" (2004), ABA Publishing
- Ezrachi, Ariel, "EU Competition Law: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases, 5th edn" (2016), Hart Publishing
- Gavil, Andrew I., "The Microsoft Antitrust Cases: Competition Policy for the Twenty-First Century" (2014), MIT Press
- Geradin, Damien, "Anne Fayne-Farrar, and Nicolas Petit, EU Competition Law and Economics" (2012), Oxford University Press
- Goyder, Joanna, "EC Competition Law, 5th edn" (2009), Oxford University Press
- Graham, Cosmo, "EU and UK Competition Law, 2nd edn" (2013), Pearson
- Hovenkamp, Herbert, "The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution" (2005), Harvard University Press
- Jones, Alison, "EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 6th edn" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Marco Colino, Sandra, "Competition Law of the EU and UK, 7th edn" (2011), Oxford University Press
- Niels, Gunnar, "Economics for Competition Lawyers, 2nd edn" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Posner, Richard A., "Antitrust Law, 2nd edn" (2001), University of Chicago Press
- Rose, Vivien, "Bellamy & Child European Union Law of Competition, 7th edn" (2013), Oxford University Press
- Slot, Piet Jan, "An Introduction to Competition Law, 2nd edn" (2017), Hart Publishing
- Whish, Richard, "Competition Law, 8th edn" (2015), Oxford University Press
- Bennett, Matthew, "The EU Law of Competition" (2014), Oxford University Press
- Carrier, Michael A., "Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150 (2002)
- Choi, Nansulhun, "Recent Developments in Competition Law and Intellectual Property Relating to Reverse Payment Agreements: A Comparative Perspective", Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 6(3) (2016)
- Choi, Yo Sop, "Restrictions of Competition in Licensing Agreements: The Worldwide Convergence of Competition Laws and Policies in the Field of Intellectual Property", European Business Organization Law Review, 17 (2016)
- 정연덕, "표준필수특허의 합리적인 실시료의 산정", 홍익법학, 18(2), pp.89~115 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Hong, Dae Sik, "Legal Analysis on SEP Holders’ Abuse of Patent Rights Case: Focused on Qualcomm Case", Bupjo, 710 (2015)
- 주진열, "특허분쟁 화해계약과 독점규제법상 부당공동행위 문제 - 글락소스미스클라인 및 동아제약 사건(대법원 2012두24498 및 2012두27794 판결)에 대한 고찰 -", 법학연구, 18(4), pp.195~224 (2015), 법학연구소
- Kuik, Krzysztof, "EC Competition Law: A Critical Assessment" (2007), Hart Publishing
- 권영관, "표준필수특허(SEPs)의 FRAND 실시료 산정 기준에 관한 연구", 지식재산연구, 11(2), pp.147~182 (2016), 한국지식재산연구원
- 이황, "FRAND 확약 위반과 특허위협(Hold-up)에대한 공정거래법상 규제의 기준", 저스티스, (129), pp.193~248 (2012), 한국법학원
- 오성은, "표준필수특허 보유자의 금지청구권 행사와 시장지배적 지위 남용행위에 관한 EU 사례 분석", 경쟁법연구, 33, pp.285~313 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
- 오승한, "FRAND 확약 특허권자의 자발적 실시자에 대한 금지청구권의 행사와 독점규제법 위반 책임", 경쟁법연구, 29, pp.217~278 (2014), 한국경쟁법학회
- 오승한, "FRAND 확약을 위반한 실시료 청구의 비합리성 판단기준", 지식재산연구, 11(3), pp.59~94 (2016), 한국지식재산연구원
- Pitofsky, Robert, "Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Unresolved Issues at the Heart of the New Economy", Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 16 (2001)
- Rubinfeld, Daniel L., "Antitrust, Patents and Copyright: EU and US Perspectives" (2005), Edward Elgar
- Shapiro, Carl, "Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume I" (2000), MIT Press
- "KFTC imposes sanctions against Qualcomm’s abuse of SEPs of mobile communications" (2016)[URL]
- "FTC Charges Qualcomm With Monopolizing Key Semiconductor Device Used in Cell Phones" (2017)[URL]
- "Samsung vs. Apple: Who Will Win the Smartphone War?"[URL]