• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >When an Intellectual Property Right Becomes an Intellectual Property Wrong: Re-examining the Role of Section 32 of the Competition Act.
【24h】

When an Intellectual Property Right Becomes an Intellectual Property Wrong: Re-examining the Role of Section 32 of the Competition Act.

机译：当知识产权成为错误的知识产权时：重新审查《竞争法》第32条的作用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are becoming increasingly important due to their inevitable link to technology and economic development. This highlighted role has resulted in the emergence and development of over-protections that are beyond the ideal scope of IPRs. As the scope of IPRs expands, competition concerns are also intensifying and, as a result, the interface between IP and competition law is expanding in new directions. To address these new developments, trans-Atlantic jurisdictions have developed new policies based on the general provisions of their competition laws. Canada's current policy toward the IP/competition law interface is affected by the existence of a unique section in its Competition Act, section 32, which directly refers to the anti-competitive usage of IPRs. Despite section 32's long presence in the Act and its role as a basis of the Competition Bureau's analysis of the IP/competition law interface in Canada, this section has not been judicially considered to date. This thesis re-examines the role of section 32 and explores some of the reasons behind its current obsolescence. The main claim of this thesis is that the current interpretations of the role of section 32 are not as broad as envisaged in the statute. On the one hand, the Competition Bureau's interpretation in the Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines ( IPEGs) limits the scope of section 32 to the unilateral refusal to license IPRs. The approach that the Bureau has adopted toward the unilateral refusal to license is more in line with the American restrictive approach, which allows very limited scope for competition law interventions in the IP realm. From the author's point of view, such a restrictive approach is not consistent with the underlying principles of Canadian competition policies. On the other hand, section 32 has not been amended since 1935. This has led to the generation of some procedural restrictions in the application of this section. The author claims that the procedural requirements of section 32 need to be amended in order to parallel the modernization of the Competition Act that has occurred over the last few decades.
机译：由于其与技术和经济发展的必然联系，知识产权（IPR）变得越来越重要。这种突出的作用导致出现和发展了超出知识产权理想范围的过度保护。随着知识产权范围的扩大，竞争的关注也在加剧，结果，知识产权与竞争法之间的关系也朝着新的方向扩展。为了应对这些新发展，跨大西洋司法管辖区根据其竞争法的一般规定制定了新政策。加拿大现行的知识产权/竞争法接口政策受到其《竞争法》第32条中唯一条款的影响，该条款直接涉及知识产权的反竞争性使用。尽管第32条已在该法案中长期存在，并且作为竞争局分析加拿大知识产权/竞争法关系的基础而发挥了作用，但迄今为止，该条尚未在司法上得到考虑。本文重新审查了第32节的作用，并探讨了其当前过时的背后原因。本论文的主要主张是，当前对第32条的作用的解释不如法规所设想的那样广泛。一方面，竞争局在《知识产权执法指南》（IPEGs）中的解释将第32条的范围限制为单方面拒绝许可知识产权。无线电通信局针对单方面拒绝许可所采取的方法与美国的限制性方法更加一致，后者限制了竞争法在知识产权领域的干预范围。从作者的角度来看，这种限制性做法与加拿大竞争政策的基本原则不一致。另一方面，自1935年以来未对第32条进行修订。这导致在应用本节时产生了一些程序上的限制。作者声称，需要对第32条的程序要求进行修改，以与近几十年来发生的《竞争法》的现代化保持同步。

著录项

  • 作者

    Nouri, Soudeh N.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Victoria (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 University of Victoria (Canada).;
  • 学科 Law.;Intellectual property.
  • 学位 M.Laws
  • 年度 2012
  • 页码 169 p.
  • 总页数 169
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号