scholarly journals Beyond Refusal to Deal: A Cross-Atlantic View of Copyright, Competition and Innovation Policies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Katz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Antitrust Regulation ◽  
External Check

Conventional wisdom holds that the European Union has opted to apply its competition law to the exercise of intellectual property rights to a much greater extent than has the United States. We argue that, at least in the context of copyright protection, this conventional wisdom is false. While European antitrust regulation of refusal to license one's intellectual property does seem much more robust and activist than U.S. antitrust regulation of similar conduct, focusing solely on one narrow aspect of antitrust doctrine — the treatment of a unilateral refusal to deal — tells less than half the story.Once various doctrines of copyright law are taken into account, the substantive difference between the European and American approaches not only narrows, but in some key respects is reversed. While European jurisdictions have relatively expansive copyright protection which may require antitrust intervention to check anti-competitive uses of copyrighted works, American copyright law provides stronger internal limits on copyright protection, which thereby lessens the need for resort to antitrust law as an external check on anti-competitive uses of copyrighted works. Furthermore, when the broader impact that antitrust law might have on the exercise of IPRs in the United States is considered (not only in substance, but also in antitrust process), it becomes apparent that in key respects, when innovative-competition is at stake, U.S. law grants overall weaker copyright protection than that available in Europe. We also explain why the two jurisdictions have adopted distinct approaches to resolving similar problems and evaluate those approaches.

scholarly journals Digitizing Scent and Flavor: A Copyright Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Amara Lopez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
New Technology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Space ◽  
Recent Developments

Should the flavor of a cheese fall under copyright protection? The Court of Justice of the European Union recently confronted this question in Levola Hengelo BV v. Smilde Foods. Although the court ultimately denied protection, its reasoning opened many doors for those seeking intellectual property protection for scents and flavors. The court implied that it was the subjective nature of a cheese flavor that bars it from enjoying the protection copyright affords, which begs the question of what would happen if there were a sufficiently objective way to describe a flavor. Recent developments in technology have led to the digitization of scent and flavor. In the intellectual property space, digitization provides a superior means of fixation for scents and flavors but it also threatens to make reverse engineering much easier. This would take away the protection trade secret law affords to scents and flavors. This will undoubtedly push industry leaders to seek more protection from the law. This Note explores how copyright law in the United States and the European Union might handle this new technology and argues that protection should not come in the United States until Congress weighs all considerations and adds a new subject matter category for scents and flavors to the U.S. Copyright Act.

Recent Copyright Protection Schemes

2011 ◽  
pp. 182-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman T. Tavani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
Copyright Policy ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Way

This chapter critically examines current copyright protection schemes that apply to digital information. We begin with a brief examination of the way in which copyright law has evolved in the United States, from its Anglo-American origins to the present, and then we examine three traditional philosophical theories of property that have been used to justify the granting of copyright protection. Arguing that each property theory is inadequate, we next consider and reject the view that intellectual property should not be protected at all (and thus should be completely free). We then critically analyze the notion of information, arguing that it should not be viewed as a commodity that deserves exclusive protection but rather as something that should be communicated and shared. Building on this view, we argue for a new presumptive principle for approaching the copyright debate — namely, the principle that information wants to be shared. Finally, we argue that presuming in favor of this principle would enable us to formulate a copyright policy that can avoid the extremes found in the two main competing contemporary positions, both of which are morally unacceptable: (1) the view that access to all digitized information should be totally free; and (2) the view that overreaching, and arguably oppressive, copyright legislation, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act, is needed to protect digital information.

Intellectual Property and Competition Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Scott Hemphill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Policy ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Core Ability

This chapter surveys the intersection of competition law—or antitrust law, as it is known in the United States—with intellectual property (IP). It examines whether and how IP rights alter the substantive scope of antitrust law, either by operation of statute or as a matter of economic policy. It discusses a wide variety of antitrust claims, alleging collusion, exclusion, or both, that have been raised against IP rights holders. The examples are drawn mainly from the United States, although European developments are also included where relevant. The analysis supports the conclusion that, beyond a rights holder’s core ability to assert a valid, infringed right against a rival, IP restricts antitrust law less than one might expect. Moreover, the restrictions that do exist are often subtle.

The Intersection Between Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 121-134
Author(s):  
Mariateresa Maggiolino ◽  
Laura Zoboli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Alternative Scenarios

The interface between intellectual property rights (IPR) and the rules to protect the correct functioning of the market can be canvassed by looking at when these two sets of provisions converge and collide. This chapter analyses four alternative scenarios, by stressing that policy decisions become crucial to solve the cases of conflict and, in particular, the case where antitrust law forbids practices that intellectual property (IP) laws allow. Moreover, the chapter illustrates that it is in relation to these policy decisions that scholars and practitioners can appreciate how different jurisdictions, as in the United States (US) and European Union (EU), conceptualize the role that property rights and competition are called to play in spurring innovation.

scholarly journals The EU Copyright Directive as Compared to US Copyright Law and its Implication for Libraries

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-266
Author(s):  
Marco Marandola
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Directive ◽  
Union Directive ◽  
Copyright Directive ◽  
The Eu

This article aims at analyzing the relations and differences between the United States of America Copyright Law and the European Union Directive 2001/29/CE and how they affect the management of protected work in the libraries.

scholarly journals Pornografía no consentida: alternativas en el ordenamiento jurídico de la propiedad intelectual de Estados Unidos

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (00) ◽  
pp. 141-169
Author(s):  
Fredrick Vega Lozada
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal System ◽  
North American ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Privacy Act

Non-consensual pornography is an act of violence that undermines the dignity, reputation and honor of people. This research presents some of the existing legal alternatives to face these acts of violence with intellectual property law, specifically with copyright. This research is based on the legal system of the United States of America, the United States Copyright Law of 1976, the Electronic Non-Theft Act of 1997, The Communication Decency Law of 1996, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and the exceptions and clarifications presented by the jurisprudence. The investigation concludes that there are alternatives available to victims of these acts of non-consensual pornography. However, to make North American copyright remedies accessible to victims, it is recommended to amend some of the current Acts analyzed.

Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Angela Huyue Zhang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Trade Associations ◽  
Usual Approach ◽  
Antitrust Regulation

This introductory chapter provides an overview of Chinese antitrust exceptionalism and how it poses challenges to the existing global antitrust policy. Among the world's greatest economic powers, China brings up the rear in adopting modern antitrust law. Despite being a relatively new antitrust regime, China has not hesitated to impose harsh antitrust remedies on offshore merger transactions and intervene in business practices aggressively, departing from the usual approach of Western antitrust authorities. However, China is not only exceptional as an antitrust regulator but also as a target of antitrust regulation. In addition to being the second largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) and a principle importer, China is the world’s largest exporter and one of the leading outward investors. In recent years, the swift expansion of Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) into Europe has raised eyebrows of antitrust regulators. Moreover, Chinese manufacturers, coordinated by government-sponsored trade associations, have had to grapple with successive private lawsuits and hefty fines for operating export cartels in the United States.

scholarly journals The state copyright conundrum: What’s your state government’s rule on copyright?

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (10) ◽  
pp. 571
Author(s):  
Kyle K. Courtney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
States Government ◽  
Clear Statement

U.S. copyright law has a unique place in the world regarding federal works and copyright. Federal copyright law states that “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.”1 This is a broad and clear statement that works of the federal government are in the public domain and are free for use by all.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document