Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   anti-competitive

   

   Nina Paley (profile), Aug 19th, 2010 @ 5:48am

   
   

   Copyright exists for anti-competitive reasons. That's what monopoly is.
   
   http://ninapaley.com/mimiandeunice/archives/rivalrous-vs-non-rivalrous/492

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Competition Law vs. IP

   

   Chris Ball (profile), Aug 19th, 2010 @ 6:18am

   
   

   Competition law statutes generally contain exceptions for IP rights. As Nina said, copyright (and patents, industrial designs, etc.) exist precisely for anti-competitive purposes, so it wouldn't make much sense for lawmakers to allow competition law to trump IP in general. That said, competition law (at least here in Canada) is quite often used to curb IP rights; it's just not as useful as you might think, and only works in pretty extreme cases.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 6:40am

   
   

   "Can Antitrust Law Stop Abuses Of Intellectual Property And Free Access To Knowledge?"
   
   No, anti trust laws are designed to be abused in favor of petitioners who bribe the government (with campaign contributions) and want competitors (ie: Google) eliminated.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 6:44am

   
   

   So your idea of supporting the military is to use them to promote your advertising campaign?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Chris-Mouse (profile), Aug 19th, 2010 @ 6:54am

   
   

   I think that a big part of the problem is the lack of penalties for abusing IP Laws. The cost for a company to make the attempt to stretch the law to eliminate competition is trivial compared to the benefits of successfully eliminating the competition. If a corporation can risk only a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees in the hopes of getting a complete monopoly on all after market support for their products, they'd be nuts not to take the chance. The only way this will ever stop is when the downside of trying and failing is much greater than the up side of trying and succeeding in stretching the law. Financial penalties would be a good start, but I'd let the judge include other penalties up to a complete loss of the IP rights involved in the case. That way the corporation ends up taking a true gamble instead of the "I may not win, but I can't lose" situation we have right now.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Antitrust Law

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 6:58am

   
   

   IP is an exception to competition law is missing the point.
   Control over IP is often abused to leverage other aspects, such as refusal to supply. Which can be illegal.
   
   Microsoft were convicted in Europe, regardless of ownership of copyright, because they used their control over the desktop to restrict interoperability with other opereating systems.
   
   Complainant was Sun Microsystems.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 7:38am

   
   

   and if anti trust laws were really about the consumer why don't they break up the cableco monopolies.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 7:47am

   
   

   Antitrust laws have always been the "flip side" of IP laws, which is why those who practice in the IP area have to take such laws into account when representing their clients. Quite frankly, I have always been mystified why they are used so sparingly (i.e., virtually never) in cases of clear overreaching by rights holders...even when the rights holder does not hold a market position where it is able to monopolize a market and thereby control/manipulate prices.
   
   The penalty when such a violation is established? Invalidation of a patent or a copyright is on the "remedy table".

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: hello Dear,

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 9:03am

   
   

   Listen Dear, I've trademarked the term "Miss Cynthia". You are in violation of my intellectual property rights. You can pay me $75,000 for permission to continue calling yourself Miss Cynthia.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re:

    

    Cathy, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 9:04am

    
    

    I think some of the reason anti-trust is not raised in IP cases more often is because practitioners of one area don't always know the other as well.
    
    But that may be starting to change.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Aug 19th, 2010 @ 10:11am

    
    

    In which case I would not refer to them as "practitioners" in the true sense of the word, but as "routineers/journeymen".
    
    Every licensing agreement I have ever prepared is vetted against antitrust law to ensure compliance. The same can be said of tax law, export control law, etc. because all of them potentially impact the agreement and must be considered lest the client receive in the future a most unpleasant surprise and the lawyer the same (malpractice).

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: anti-competitive

    

    Crosbie Fitch (profile), Sep 14th, 2010 @ 2:44am

    
    

    Yup, it's a bit like calling the police to arrest soldiers for killing people on the battlefield.
    
    Copyright is a monopoly.
    
    If you don't want such anti-competitive commercial privileges then abolish them. Don't be so stupid as to quibble between 'fairly anti-competitive' and 'unfairly anti-competitive'.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment