Posted by Social Science Research Network
Exploitative Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights
Harry First (New York University School of Law)
Abstract:      It is the standard view in the United States that US antitrust law does not reach acts of exploitation by a monopolist, particularly monopoly pricing (“rent extraction”). Even more so for intellectual property, where U.S. courts have emphasized the right of an intellectual property right holder to raise prices and exploit its rights to the fullest, constrained only by market demand. Competition law in the rest of the world appears to be otherwise, however, with many countries generally condemning excessive high prices by dominant firms, even if often reluctant to invoke such provisions in practice.
Despite apparent differences in legal approaches, current enforcement practice worldwide with regard to price-raising exploitation of intellectual property rights by monopolists shows a uniform willingness to condemn such conduct as anticompetitive. This paper describes this concern for exploitation, focusing on competition law enforcement in the United States, China, Europe, Japan, and Korea in three substantive areas: patents subject to FRAND licensing obligations, disclosure requirements imposed on patent holders with monopoly power to prevent them from exploiting licensees or potential licensees, and post-expiration royalties.
This paper argues that this concern for exploitative behavior is consistent with sound competition policy. Preventing the undue exploitation of intellectual property rights is an important aspect of economizing on the reward we give to incentivize innovation. Antitrust has traditionally favored placing some limits on intellectual property rights and placing greater reliance on the incentives for innovation that competitive markets can provide.
Featured News
    FTC Pushes Review of CoStar’s Commercial Real Estate Antitrust Case
    Jan 31, 2024 by
        CPI    
    UK’s CMA Investigates Ardonagh’s Atlanta Group and Markerstudy Merger
    Jan 31, 2024 by
        CPI    
    Greenberg Traurig Grow Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice
    Jan 31, 2024 by
        CPI    
    Dutch Regulator Fines Uber €10 Million for Privacy Violations
    Jan 31, 2024 by
        CPI    
    DOJ Investigates AI Competition, Eyes Microsoft’s OpenAI Deal: Bloomberg
    Jan 31, 2024 by
        CPI    
Antitrust Mix by CPI
    Antitrust Chronicle® – The Rule(s) of Reason
    Jan 29, 2024 by
        CPI    
    Evolving the Rule of Reason for Legacy Business Conduct
    Jan 29, 2024 by
        CPI    
    The Object Identity
    Jan 29, 2024 by
        CPI    
    In Praise of Rules-Based Antitrust
    Jan 29, 2024 by
        CPI    
    The Future of State AG Antitrust Enforcement and Federal-State Cooperation
    Jan 29, 2024 by
        CPI