Afterword, Symposium: Antitrust and the Suppression of Technology in the United States and Europe
Cite
66 Antitrust L.J. 527
Year
1998
Bluebook cite
Jack Kaufmann, Afterword, Symposium: Antitrust And The Suppression Of Technology In The United States And Europe: Is There A Remedy?, 66 Antitrust L.J. 527 (1998)
What conclusions can we draw from the experience in the rest of the world with compulsory licensing? I suggest there are three. First, that experience suggests that technology suppression, at least in the sense of a patent holder refusing to use or permit the use of its patent, is not a common occurrence. Second, to the extent such suppression does occur, at least with a patent, it is perhaps better addressed by patent law rather than antitrust law, as it is in the rest of the world, for two reasons: (1) compulsory licensing provisions would undoubtedly encourage voluntary licensing, thus encouraging the use of technology without the expense, delay, and uncertainty of litigation; and (2) cases such as Alling FN23 or J&J FN24 show that there may not be an injured party with standing to bring an action, thus limiting any enforcement under the antitrust laws to the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division. Third, whether or not patent law in the United States will ever provide for compulsory licensing, Eugene Crew's success in the Alling case, and the plaintiffs' success in the J&J case suggest that, at least in cases with egregious facts, a remedy will be available in tort for someone injured by the suppression of technology. FNa1. Member of the New York Bar.
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Wednesday 19 of August, 2009 18:56:46 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Wednesday 19 of August, 2009 18:56:46 GMT by Unknown