论文部分内容阅读
反垄断案件和知识产权案件都需要在很多场合界定市场。但两个法律领域中的市场界定既有联系又有区别。市场结构因素在反垄断分析中具有基础地位,在知识产权案件中基本不具有相关性。知识产权法界定市场是为了确定企业间的对抗范围,反垄断法界定市场则是为了确定企业的市场势力。有些知识产权问题涉及竞争政策,但未必需要界定相关市场。还有一些涉及知识产权的案件,因损害竞争在实质上属于反垄断案件,需要按照反垄断法的分析方法处理,包括界定相关市场。在后一类案件中,知识产权因素导致市场界定需要做一些特殊考虑,但并不改变基本分析方法,尤其是知识产权的边界型排斥并不自动等同于垄断的市场型排斥;知识产权带来的产品差异化也不等同于垄断力量。
Antitrust cases and intellectual property cases need to define the market on many occasions. However, the definition of markets in the two legal fields is both linked and differentiated. The market structure factor has the basic position in antitrust analysis and basically does not have relevance in the case of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property law to define the market is to determine the scope of confrontation between enterprises, anti-monopoly law to define the market is to determine the market forces. Some intellectual property issues relate to competition policy but do not necessarily require the definition of the relevant market. There are also cases involving IPRs where damage to competition is in fact an antitrust case and needs to be handled in accordance with the antitrust method of analysis, including the definition of the relevant market. In the latter case, the intellectual property factor leading to market demarcation needs some special consideration, but does not change the basic analytical methods. In particular, borderline exclusion of intellectual property does not automatically equate to market-based exclusion of monopoly. Intellectual property brings Product differentiation is not the same as monopoly power.