Intellectual Property Rights and Rules on Abuses of Dominant Positions

• Main Authors: Hung-Wei Ying, 洪葦瀅
• Other Authors: Hsieh-Kuo Lien
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/g9e2s6

碩士 === 世新大學 === 智慧財產權研究所(含碩專班) === 96 === Intellectual property rights (IPRs) refers that society has deemed worthy of protection and grants exclusive rights in a certain period of time. Therefore the right holders could exercise their legal rights to maximize their profit. Competition policy plays an important role, however, in limiting the extent of market power associated with IPRs, ensuring in particular that such power is not excessively used and extended to other unrelated markets. IPRs, in fact, do not give the right to exclude competition. With this respect, competition policy has a role in limiting abuses related to the exercise of IPRs and preventing undertakings holding IPRs from engaging in anticompetitive practices. The exclusive rights do not essentially conflict with (abuses of) dominant positions in competition law and the topic of discussion only occur when the right holders have dominant positions in relevant markets, exercising illegitimate commercial use and have anticompetitive effects. The discussion divided into two parts: dominant positions in European competition law and Fair Trade Law in Taiwan and related judgments. In Chapter Two, the author will discuss the relationship between IPRs and (abuses of) dominant positions in Europe, the criteria of Article 82 EC and the suggestions of the Reform of Article 82 EC, and Article 2 Sherman Act in the United States. In Chapter Three, the author will discuss and analyze 8 judgments in the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, find out the standpoints of the courts and draw the outline of the courts’ criteria and the conclusion of the research. In Chapter Four, the author will study the regulations of (abuses of) dominant positions in Fair Trade Law in Taiwan and discuss the standpoints in Taiwan. In Chapter Five, the author will discuss 2 judgments in the Supreme Administrative Court, refer to the conclusion of research in Chapter Three and provide some beneficial and constructive suggestions for our country.