Antitrust policy, innovation efficiencies, and the suppression of technology

Article Abstract:

Legal and economic values for innovative technological efficiencies must be developed before antitrust law can reliably enforce policies against the suppression of innovative technologies. Before a private case can be brought, however, both the purpose and the effect of the intent to monopolize or restrain the trade of innovative technologies must be proven. As an incentive for innovation, antitrust remedies should include the divesture of intellectual property rights when suppression is found.

United States

---

Restrictions on innovation: an EU antitrust approach

Article Abstract:

European Union (EU) antitrust law under the Treaty of Rome prohibits the unilateral suppression of technological innovation. Tetra Pak v. Commission and RTE v. Commission are the bases for minimizing restraints on the dissemination of intellectual property. The EU should review its multilateral suppression policies, however, because its steps to standardize information technology threatens to stifle innovation.

European Union

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Antitrust implications of joint efforts by third party payors to reduce costs and improve the quality of health care
• Abstracts: Expedited arbitration and other innovations in alternative dispute resolution. Arbitration is okay
• Abstracts: Antitrust implications of joint efforts by third party payors to reduce costs and improve the quality of health care. part 2
• Abstracts: Arbitration in Central and Eastern Europe: a practitioner's view. Tailoring the ADR clause in international contracts
• Abstracts: Contingent liabilities in section 351 transactions: the IRS limits the application of Holdcroft. Sidestepping the business purpose test for corporate spin-offs

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.