باهم‌فروشی در قراردادهای مجوز بهره‌برداری از مالکیت فکری: رهیافت حقوق رقابت

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه مالکیت فکری دانشگاه قم

2 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد حقوق مالکیت فکری دانشگاه قم

چکیده

منوط کردن اعطای مجوز بهره‌برداری از محصول فکری اصلی به دریافت محصول دیگر یا باهم فروشی، به عنوان یکی از مسائل اصلی حقوق رقابت، به دو دسته مجاز و غیرمجاز تقسیم می‌شود. شرایط باهم‌فروشی غیرمجاز در اتحادیه اروپایی عبارتند از وجود اثر ضدرقابتی، تمایز دو محصول و اجبار و بسته به مورد، وجود توافق بین بنگاه‌ها یا سوءاستفاده از وضعیت مسلط اقتصادی. قانونگذاران آمریکا و ایران نیز شرایط کم و بیش مشابهی را مقرر داشته‌اند. در هر سه نظام یادشده، ضمانت‌اجراهای مدنی و کیفری مانند بطلان یا قابلیت ابطال توافقات و جریمه نقدی برای باهم‌فروشی پیش‌بینی شده است. مقررات ایران، هم در زمینه شرایط باهم فروشی و هم ضمانت اجرای آن نیازمند بازنگری است.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Tying in Intellectual Property Licenses: the Approach of Competition Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mostafa Bakhtiyarvand 1
  • zeinab farhadkhani 2
1 Assistant Professor, Intellectual Property Law Department, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
2 M.A Graduate, Intellectual Property Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Conditioning the licensing of an intellectual product on acquiring another i.e. tying, as an essential issue in competition law, is divided into legal and illegal. The elements of illegal tying in the European Union are: anti-competitive effect, distinct products, force and, depending on the case, agreement between undertakings or abuse of dominant position. Legislators, in the United States and Iran, have provided for similar conditions. The three legal systems have prescribed civil remedies and criminal sanctions such as declaring the agreements as automatically void, their voidability or fines which, depending on circumstances, will be enforced. Provisions of the Iranian law, both on conditions of tying and its remedies and sanctions must be revised.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Competition law
  • Intellectual property license
  • Additional Obligations
  • Legal tying
  • Illegal tying
  • Remedies and sanctions

منابع

الف. فارسی

باقری، محمود، عباسی، سیمین(1391)، سیاست‌های حقوق رقابت و حقوق مالکیت فکری، فصلنامه حقوق، مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دوره 42، ش.2، تابستان 1391، 74-59.

جعفر زاده، میر قاسم، رهبری، ابراهیم(1390)، تحلیل رقابتی تحدیدات مظنون در قراردادهای لیسانس فناوری، تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 55، پاییز 1390، 291-213.

حسن‌پور، محمدمهدی(1395)، حقوق رقابت و قرارداد مجوز بهره‌برداری، تهران: مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد.

رهبری، ابراهیم(1392)، حقوق انتقال فناوری، تهران: سمت.

صابری، روح‌الله(1387)، قراردادهای لیسانس، تهران: مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های بازرگانی.

عبدی پور، ابراهیم(1388)، سوءاستفاده از وضعیت اقتصادی مسلط، حقوقاسلامی،سالششم،شماره21،تابستان 1388، 156-125.

غفاری فارسانی، بهنام(1393)، حقوق رقابت و ضمانت اجراهای مدنی آن، تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان.

 

ب. انگلیسی

ABA Section of Antitrust Law (2001), Competition Laws outside the United States, volume 1.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law (2007), Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook.

Ahlborn, Christian, Evans, David, S, Padilla, A. Jorge (2004), The antitrust economics of tying: a farewell to per se illegality, The Antitrust Bulletin/Spring-Summer 2004, 287-341.

Baumgartner, Anna Maria (2013), Antitrust Issues In Technology Transfer:A Comparative Legal Analysis Of Patent Licenses In The Eu And The U.S. Ttlf Working Papers; Stanford – Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Foruma Joint Initiative Of Stanford Law School And The University Of Vienna School Of Law.

Blair, Roger D, Sokol, D, Daniel (2012) The rule of reason and the goals of antitrust: an economic approach, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.78, No. 2 (2012), 471-504.

Brahimi, Muhamet (2008), The Interaction Between European Community Competition Law And Intellectual Property Rights: Tying And Bundling In The Light Of The Microsoft Case.Master Thesis, University Of Lund.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreemen.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty with amendments.

Economides, Nicholas, Lianos, Loannis (2010), A Critical Appraisal of Remedies in the E.U. Microsoft Cases, Columbia Law Review, n. 2:346, vol.2010.

Elftorp, Kristian (2010), Abuse Of A Dominant Position The Legal Position Of Tying Practices Within European Competition Law.Petra Inwinkl;Bachelor’s Thesis Within European Competition Law.

European Commission (2005), DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses Public consultation, available at: ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf (accessed: 20/8/2014).

European Commission (2014), Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements, (2014/C 89/03).

Geradin, Damien (2008), Tying & Bundled Discounting, http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/questionnaires/uc%20tying/nga-eu%20tbd.pdf Lacobucci, Edward, (2001), Tying as Quality Control: A Legal and Economic Analysis. Faculty of Law, University Of Toronto; Law and Economics Research Paper No.01-09 available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=293602(accessed: 1/9/2014).

Gupta, Anisha (2012), Concept of Tying and Bundling and its Effect on Competition: A Critical Study of it in Various Jurisdictions, Faculty of Law (Campus Law Center), Delhi University.

Henrio, Romain (2012), Tying under European competition rules Do current anti-tying rules make European consumers better-off? An analysis of the Digital case, Mémoire de recherché, Institut d'Études Politiques de Toulouse, available at:   https://memoires.sciencespo-toulouse.fr/uploads/memoires/2012/DECR/memoire_HENRIO-ROMAIN.pdf (accessed:18/9/2014).

International Competition Network (Unilateral Conduct Working Group) (2009), Report on Tying and Bundled Discounting. Presented at the 8th Annual Conference of the Icn; June 2009, available at: www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc356.pdf(accessed: 5/9/2014).

Katz, Ariel (2007), Making Sense of Nonsense Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and the Presumption of Market Power, ARIZONA LAW REVIEW, VOL. 49:837,837-909.

Lianos, Loannis (2010), Competition Law Remedies. In Search of a Theory, CLES Working Paper Series 3/2011.

Ponsoldt, Jame, F& David, Christopher, D (2007), Comparison between U.S. and E.U. Antitrust Treatment of Tying Claims against Microsoft: When Should the Bundling of Computer Software Be Permitted, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, volume 17, issue 2, 421-452.

Renda, Anderia, Valiante, Diego (2010), Legal and economic approach to tying and other potentially unfair and anticompetitive commercial practices: focus on financial services, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1736555(accessed: 12/9/2014).

U.S. Dep't of Justice  & Fed. Trade Comm'n (2007), Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.

 U.S. Dep't of Justice  & Fed. Trade Comm'n (2017), Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission (2008), Tying & Bundled Discounting.

Dobrean, Corina Virginia (2011), Product Tying Involving Intellectual Property: Pro Or Anti-Innovation Effects.Thesis, Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.