期刊文献+

Anti-Competitive Effects of Discriminatory Licensing for Standards-Essential Patents and Antitrust Policymaking

Anti-Competitive Effects of Discriminatory Licensing for Standards-Essential Patents and Antitrust Policymaking
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Antitrust examination of discriminatory patent licensing fees imposed by companies who own standards-essential patents(SEPs) is a difficult issue in antitrust law enforcement. After studying Huawei's litigation against IDC and China's anti-monopoly investigation of Qualcomm, this paper creates a vertical oligopolistic game theory model to demonstrate that discriminatory licensing fees imposed by firms with patent monopoly will lead to the collection of high licensing fees from downstream low-cost firms, weaken their competitive advantage, reduce their output and market share, impede their follow-up innovations, and generally harm the social welfare. Therefore, charging high discriminatory licensing fees constitutes an act that harms competition and should be prohibited by antitrust law. Antitrust examination of discriminatory licensing fees should make assessments primarily on the basis of the FRAND principle. Antitrust examination may adopt a triple-structure method to assess the reasonableness of licensing fees, but antitrust authorities should avoid directly prescribing the level of licensing fees and should safeguard the effectiveness of transaction mechanisms based on free negotiations among micro-level entities. Antitrust remedies should follow the principle of "intervening in the price formation mechanism rather than prescribing the level of licensing fees." Antitrust examination of discriminatory patent licensing fees imposed by companies who own standards-essential patents (SEPs) is a difficult issue in antitrust law enforcement. After studying Huawei's litigation against IDC and China "s anti-monopoly investigation of Qualcomm, this paper creates a vertical oligopolistic game theory model to demonstrate that discriminatory licensing fees imposed by firms with patent monopoly will lead to the collection of high licensing fees from downstream low-cost firms, weaken their competitive advantage, reduce their output and market share, impede their follow-up innovations, and generally harm the social welfare. Therefore, charging high discriminatory licensing fees constitutes an act that harms competition and should be prohibited by antitrust law. Antitrust examination of discriminatory licensing fees should make assessments primarily on the basis of the FRAND principle. Antitrust examination may adopt a triple-structure method to assess the reasonableness of licensing fees, but antitrust authorities should avoid directly prescribing the level of licensing fees and should safeguard the effectiveness of transaction mechanisms based on free negotiations among micro-level entities. Antitrust remedies should follow the principle of "intervening in the priceformation mechanism rather than prescribing the level of licensing fees."
出处 《China Economist》 2016年第2期39-50,共12页 中国经济学人(英文版)
关键词 经济学 经济规律 经济范畴 宏观经济学 standards-essential patents (SEPs), discriminatory licensing, anti-competitive effects, FRAND principle, anti-monopoly policy
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1Carlton, Dennis W., and Allan Shampine. 2013. "An Economic Interpretation of FRAND." Social Science Electronic Publishing, 9(3): 531-552.
  • 2Farrell, J., and Sullivan T. 2007. "Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-up." Antitrust Law Journal, 74(3): 603-670.
  • 3Hausman, Jerry A., and Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason. 1988. "Price Discrimination and Patent Policy." The RAND Journal of Economics, 19(2): 253-265.
  • 4Lemley, Mark A., and Carl Shapiro. 2006. "Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking." Stanford Law & Economics Olin Working Paper No. 324.
  • 5--. 2013. "A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents." Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2243026.
  • 6Lemer, J., and J. Tirole. 2015. "Standard-Essential Patents." Journal of Political Economy, 123 (3): 547-586.
  • 7Levinson Robert J., and Stanley Besen. 2012. "The Use and Abuse of Voluntary Standard-Setting Processes in a Post- Rambus World: Law, Economics, and Competition Policy." Antitrust Bulletin, 57(1): 1-16.
  • 8Posner, Richard A. 2003. The Antitrust Laws, translated by Qiuning Sun. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.
  • 9Robinson, J. 1933. The Economics of Imperfect Competition London: Macmillan.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部