Tvångslicenser med stöd av artikel 82 - effekter och biverkningar

Intellectual property laws and antitrust laws have different purposes&semic intellectual property rights do often give companies a dominant position on different markets which may harm the competition on those markets. Intellectual property laws want to give exclusive rights as incentive for research and development while antitrust laws want to create a competitive market which favours the consumers. In cases where intellectual property rights lead to a dominant position and the company in favour of this is abusing that position, the antitrust laws will intervene and bring the market back to balance. The antitrust laws remedy in those cases is article 82 and compulsory licensing. The Court of Justice has in two controversial cases used article 82 and compulsory licensing due to abuse of a dominant position which a company have reached because of holding an intellectual property right. Compulsory licensing is a very sensitive subject which often triggers a debate. Problems with too many compulsory licences are that the incentives for research and development may disappear. Companies with a big research and development field may need to share their innovations with competitors which will mean decreased profitability, and due to big company's total capital investments, this could even result in a net loss. In this work I have analysed two debated cases from the Court of Justice, Magill and IMS Health, examined the purposes and effects of compulsory licensing, how compulsory licences should be used and on which occasions