While the economic rationale for intellectual property ("IP") rights rests on the concepts of "monopoly" or "market power," the U.S. Supreme Court, in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, has recently joined a "virtual consensus" among antitrust commentators believing that no presumption of market power should exist in antitrust cases involving IP. This Article critically analyzes this consensus, and clarifies the relationship between IP and market power, shows why IP rights often do confer market power in the antitrust sense, but also explains why acknowledging this should not necessarily lead to oversized application of antitrust law to IP
In her Article, Ms. Kingsbury notes that American courts do not use antitrust law\u27s market defini...
Both antitrust and IP law are limited and imperfect instruments for regulating innovation. The probl...
This article seeks an answer to a question that should be well settled: for purposes of antitrust an...
While the economic rationale for intellectual property ("IP") rights rests on the concepts of "monop...
This Article explores the rule of law aspects of the intersection between intellectual property and ...
This paper explores the interface between two important institutional pillars of market exchange – I...
The purpose of market definition in antitrust law is to identify a grouping of sales such that a sin...
Antitrust and IP law both share the goals of promoting innovation and benefiting consumers. A potent...
Antitrust and intellectual property law both seek to improve economic welfare by facilitating compet...
When government recognizes intellectual property (IP) rights, it is often viewed as sanctioning the ...
The idea that there is a tension between antitrust and the intellectual property laws is readily exa...
For large parts of their history intellectual property law and antitrust law have worked so as to un...
Antitrust law explicitly depends on market definition. Many issues in IP law also depend on market d...
By eliminating the market power presumption for patent holders, Independent Ink calls into question ...
In her Article, Ms. Kingsbury notes that American courts do not use antitrust law\u27s market defini...
Both antitrust and IP law are limited and imperfect instruments for regulating innovation. The probl...
This article seeks an answer to a question that should be well settled: for purposes of antitrust an...
While the economic rationale for intellectual property ("IP") rights rests on the concepts of "monop...
This Article explores the rule of law aspects of the intersection between intellectual property and ...
This paper explores the interface between two important institutional pillars of market exchange – I...
The purpose of market definition in antitrust law is to identify a grouping of sales such that a sin...
Antitrust and IP law both share the goals of promoting innovation and benefiting consumers. A potent...
Antitrust and intellectual property law both seek to improve economic welfare by facilitating compet...
When government recognizes intellectual property (IP) rights, it is often viewed as sanctioning the ...
The idea that there is a tension between antitrust and the intellectual property laws is readily exa...
For large parts of their history intellectual property law and antitrust law have worked so as to un...
Antitrust law explicitly depends on market definition. Many issues in IP law also depend on market d...
By eliminating the market power presumption for patent holders, Independent Ink calls into question ...
In her Article, Ms. Kingsbury notes that American courts do not use antitrust law\u27s market defini...
Both antitrust and IP law are limited and imperfect instruments for regulating innovation. The probl...
This article seeks an answer to a question that should be well settled: for purposes of antitrust an...