PATENT ANTI-TRUST PARADOX
While the patent and antitrust processes both aim to improve the general wellbeing of society, they continue down separate lines. It is the right of exclusion which underlie the patent system. In view of the public benefit nature of the proprietary and non-rival, patented inventions, at least technically, such rewards are necessary. However the very exclusion which forms the basis of the patent system can be punished by the laws against the trust.From the perspective of dispersing or leveraging the proprietary invention, this wide variety of activities can make perfect sense. In order to take advantage of all possible uses of their invention, patentees may not be the most productive actors or their patents may block the products of other patent owners which necessitates cross-license or patent pools. The concern is that the larger need for collaboration and communication in the sense of the patent system also would allow the antitrust regulators to become more skeptical. The antitrust legislation investigates the practices which regulate competition on the grounds that competition contributes to lower costs, higher production and more innovation, while certain deals between competitors or between monopolies prohibit customers from enjoying the advantages.
For tripartite innovation, Dant’s patent-based activity is reasonable.http://Michael A. Carrier, Resolving the Patent-Antitrust Paradox Through Tripartite Innovation, 56 Vanderbilt L.R (2003) Such an investigation ensures that the courts examine the connection between the conduct being challenged and each of three critical, independent innovation stages. Thirdly, the Article adjusts standard antitrust analysis, proposes immune from the monopoly offense and the asymmetrical equilibrium that emphasizes the innovation of agreement analysed according to the rule of reason. Such a structure promotes the purposes of the patent system and is especially useful when it is essential to innovation for patent-based activities. It also retains an anti-trust role, which still considers antimonopoly effects, but is no longer blinded by over-broad patent-based defenses.The main drivers in our market success are creativity: developing innovations that allow the patentees to rebound from the development of their products and overcome the bottlenecks that tend to obstruct the direction of innovation. The method presented by this Article increases the likelihood of having such beneficial results as it prescribes for the patent system and for the many components of competition a more effective and enduring position in antitrust studies.The different ways in which patents and antitrust provide more benefits create difficulties for courts throughout the entire business activity, ranging from licenses to patent ponds to joint ventures to fusions to denied licenses. This article provides a paradigm for antitrust tribunals that can take a straightforward examination of patent-based activity. The first element of the paradigm is the choice of innovation as a shared denominator for comparing patent and antitrust systems. http://Louis Kaplow, The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1813 (1984) Innovation is the recognized aim of the patent system and an endorsed goal in antitrust legislation that plays the most important role for the different efficiencies in economic growth.
BALANCING THE INTERDEPENDENCY PARADOX
Intellectual property law is a right while Competitions law is a legislation which acts as an artificial hand over market operations. http://Ezzeddine, Selma, and M.Sami Hammami , Retracted: Nonlinear Effects of Intellectual Property Rights on Technological Innovation. 33 J. Economic Integration , no. 2 (2018): 1337-362. The theory of Ip Rights Law is based on a legal principle. Competition Law tries to give consumers a broader choice and seeks to coordinate the rights of production and consumption by delivering profits and quality products at reasonable prices. IPR also aims to reward the manufacturer as the only producer, which should be of public interest.The core competency offered by the IPR does not in itself violate role in supply chain management, but is abused. In a nutshell, it can be concluded that these two laws have the common aim, but different ways of achieving it. IPR is a thing that the state bestows on the inventor, or a prize the state offers to the developer of any product for a specific period of time, to use commercially its production. It appears that these two components are of an unique conditions, but not as shown by the study that however they align one another by supporting one another when one is abused.In terms of competition and IPR regulation, India is still at a stage of development. The 2010 director general has opened a large range of cases concerning IPR and competition issues.
The Aamir Khan Production http://Aamir Khan Production vs The Director General, 2010 (112) Bom L R 3778 The High Court in Bombay ruled that the CCI is competent to handle IPR and competition cases. It was also held that the CCI has the competence and power to deal with matters that arose before the Copyright Board in the Kingfisher vs Competition Commission http://Kingfisher Airlines v Competition Commission of India, (2010) 4 Comp. LJ 557 (Bom). These leading cases show that competition and IPR policies are the way forward. However, India is still in its infancy and needs a much deeper perspective on the matter.In the event of severe pricing, attaching agreements should be handled by the CCI and India, like TRIPS, can adopt policies like the Compulsory Licensing. CCI should develop strict principles and guidelines based on the results obtained in the USA and in the EU. The courts now believe that the ‘consumer interest is highest’ and cannot be sacrificed at the expense of the right holder. If India can take ways and refer to US and EU laws and cases, then that issue can be widely developed.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.