The Federal Trade Commission’s Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century, Innovation and Intellectual Property Policy, Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Tad Lipsky, Joshua D. Wright, D. Ginsburg, John M. Yun
{"title":"The Federal Trade Commission’s Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century, Innovation and Intellectual Property Policy, Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University","authors":"Tad Lipsky, Joshua D. Wright, D. Ginsburg, John M. Yun","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3272402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Comment is submitted in relation to the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. We submit this Comment based upon our extensive experience and expertise in antitrust law and economics. As an organization committed to promoting sound economic analysis as the foundation of antitrust enforcement and competition policy, the Global Antitrust Institute commends the FTC for holding these hearings and for inviting discussion concerning a range of important topics. \nIn this Comment, we will discuss contemporary issues involving innovation, Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”), and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) pricing commitments. As we move forward in an era marked by constant innovation revolving around Intellectual Property (“IP”) rights, it is imperative that the FTC recognize that these IP rights should be treated under the same analytical framework as other property rights and upheld regardless whether the setting is private licensing or FRAND commitments. Our modern law and jurisprudence are well-developed in the area of IP rights, and the reliance on IP rights in the standard-development process should not be accompanied by a move away from this well-developed body of law. In writing this Comment, we want to emphasize the importance of strong IP rights, the lack of evidence supporting the concern over holdup issues, and the need for the FTC to recalibrate priorities in the relationship between IP and antitrust.","PeriodicalId":306463,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Antitrust (Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Antitrust (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3272402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Comment is submitted in relation to the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. We submit this Comment based upon our extensive experience and expertise in antitrust law and economics. As an organization committed to promoting sound economic analysis as the foundation of antitrust enforcement and competition policy, the Global Antitrust Institute commends the FTC for holding these hearings and for inviting discussion concerning a range of important topics. In this Comment, we will discuss contemporary issues involving innovation, Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”), and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) pricing commitments. As we move forward in an era marked by constant innovation revolving around Intellectual Property (“IP”) rights, it is imperative that the FTC recognize that these IP rights should be treated under the same analytical framework as other property rights and upheld regardless whether the setting is private licensing or FRAND commitments. Our modern law and jurisprudence are well-developed in the area of IP rights, and the reliance on IP rights in the standard-development process should not be accompanied by a move away from this well-developed body of law. In writing this Comment, we want to emphasize the importance of strong IP rights, the lack of evidence supporting the concern over holdup issues, and the need for the FTC to recalibrate priorities in the relationship between IP and antitrust.
联邦贸易委员会关于21世纪竞争与消费者保护的听证会,创新与知识产权政策,乔治梅森大学安东宁·斯卡利亚法学院全球反垄断研究所评论
本评论是针对联邦贸易委员会(“FTC”)关于21世纪竞争与消费者保护的听证会而提交的。我们根据我们在反垄断法和经济学方面的丰富经验和专业知识提交此评论。作为一个致力于促进健全的经济分析作为反垄断执法和竞争政策的基础的组织,全球反垄断研究所赞扬联邦贸易委员会举行这些听证会,并邀请就一系列重要议题进行讨论。在本评论中,我们将讨论涉及创新、标准必要专利(“sep”)和公平、合理和非歧视(“FRAND”)定价承诺的当代问题。随着我们在一个以知识产权(“IP”)权利为标志的不断创新的时代向前发展,联邦贸易委员会必须认识到,这些知识产权应该在与其他产权相同的分析框架下对待,并且无论设置是私人许可还是FRAND承诺,都应予以维护。我们的现代法律和判例在知识产权领域已经非常发达,在标准制定过程中对知识产权的依赖不应该伴随着对这一成熟法律体系的背离。在撰写这篇评论时,我们想强调强有力的知识产权的重要性,缺乏证据支持对拖延问题的担忧,以及联邦贸易委员会需要重新调整知识产权与反垄断之间关系的优先级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信