高通决定:保护主义?为谁?

IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic) Pub Date : 2015-08-20 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2648741

Liyang Hou

{"title":"高通决定:保护主义?为谁?","authors":"Liyang Hou","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2648741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay reviews the Qualcomm decision made by the NDRC in 2015, a case about abusing standard essential patents. It observes that this decision essentially assessed conduct of abusing dominant positions under the framework of per se illegal. As a result, it, though possibly aiming to protect domestic smartphone producers, may quickly fail its purpose.","PeriodicalId":113726,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Qualcomm Decision: Protectionism? And for Whom?\",\"authors\":\"Liyang Hou\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2648741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay reviews the Qualcomm decision made by the NDRC in 2015, a case about abusing standard essential patents. It observes that this decision essentially assessed conduct of abusing dominant positions under the framework of per se illegal. As a result, it, though possibly aiming to protect domestic smartphone producers, may quickly fail its purpose.\",\"PeriodicalId\":113726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2648741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2648741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

本文回顾了2015年国家发改委对高通公司的裁决，这是一起滥用标准必要专利的案件。委员会指出，这一决定基本上是在滥用支配地位本身非法的框架下评估的行为。因此，尽管它的目的可能是保护国内智能手机生产商，但可能很快就达不到目的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Qualcomm Decision: Protectionism? And for Whom?

This essay reviews the Qualcomm decision made by the NDRC in 2015, a case about abusing standard essential patents. It observes that this decision essentially assessed conduct of abusing dominant positions under the framework of per se illegal. As a result, it, though possibly aiming to protect domestic smartphone producers, may quickly fail its purpose.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)

自引率

0.00%

发文量