Afterword, Symposium: Antitrust and the Suppression of Technology in the United States and Europe

Name

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)

Author

Jack Kaufmann

URL

66 ANTITRLJ 527

Item Type

article

Summary

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