期刊文献+

标准必要专利权人滥用市场支配地位的行为类型——以“美国FTC诉高通垄断案”为视角 被引量:4

Types of Abuse of Dominant Market Position by Standard Essential Patent Holders—From the Perspective of"Federal Trade Commission v.Qualcomm,Inc."
下载PDF
导出
摘要 2019年5月21日,美国加州北部地区法院对美国联邦贸易委员会(The Federal Trade Commission,FTC)诉高通公司垄断案作出初审判决,确认高通公司实施的“无许可、无芯片”商业模式、拒绝许可、不公平高价许可和排他性交易等滥用行为违法。本案初审判决一出,国内外反垄断理论与实务界对本案的判决结果和案件走向议论纷纷。通过冷静思考本案中相关滥用行为事实与法律问题,可以较为清楚地了解目前标准必要专利权人滥用市场支配地位行为的常见类型,并预测未来标准必要专利专利人实施滥用行为的趋势,这对我国运用反垄断法规制标准必要专利滥用行为具有良好的启示意义。 On May 21,2019,the Northern District Court of California made a court decision on the FTC v.Qualcomm Monopoly case,and found that Qualcommun's implementation of the"No license,no chip"business strategy,refusal of patent licensing,unfair high-price licensing and exclusive deals are illegal.The first decision-making has aroused the antitrust theory and practice circles at home and abroad discussing the judgment result and trend of this case.By considering the facts and legal problems of the relevant abuses in this case,we can clearly understand the common types of the current standard essential patentee's abuse of dominant position in the market,and forecast the trend of the future standard essential patentee's abuse,which has good enlightenment significance to the application of anti-monopoly law to regulate the necessary patent abuse behavior in our country.
作者 谭羽 TAN Yu(School of Economic Law,Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing 401120)
出处 《中国发明与专利》 2020年第3期100-106,共7页 China Invention & Patent
基金 国家社科基金一般项目“移动互联网领域反垄断法实施疑难问题研究”(18BFX149)。
关键词 标准必要专利 滥用市场支配地位 反垄断法 Standard Essential Patent abuse of dominant market position anti-monopoly law
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献13

  • 1Michal S.Gal.Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the US and the EC:two systems of belief about monopoly?[J].Antitrust Bull.,2004,(49):343. 被引量:1
  • 2Richard Whish,David Bailey.Competition Law[M].Oxford:OUP,2012;Alison Jones,Brenda Sufrin.EC Competition Law:Text,Cases and Materials[M].Oxford:OUP,2010. 被引量:1
  • 3Giacomo Di Federico.The New Anti-monopoly Law in China from a European Perspective[J].World Competition,2009,(32):249;Xiaoye Wang.Highlights of China's New Anti-Monopoly Law[2009]Antitrust L.J.,(75):133. 被引量:1
  • 4David Gilo,Ariel Ezrachi.Are Excessive Prices Really SelfCorrecting?[J].Journal of Competition Law&Economics,2008,(5):249. 被引量:1
  • 5David Gilo,Ariel Ezrachi.Excessive Pricing,Entry Assessment,and Investment:Lessons from the Mittal Litigation,[J].Antitrust L.J.,2010,(76):873. 被引量:1
  • 6国家发改委《行政处罚决定书》发改办价监处罚[2015]1号. 被引量:1
  • 7深圳市第一人民中级法院(2011)深中知民初字第858号. 被引量:1
  • 8广东省高价人民法院(2013)粤高法民三终字306号. 被引量:1
  • 9Case United Brand v.Commission[1978]ECR 207,para250,"it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product. 被引量:1
  • 10王先林.我国反垄断法适用于知识产权领域的再思考[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学),2013,50(1):34-43. 被引量:39

共引文献14

同被引文献50

引证文献4

二级引证文献13

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