The Path to Innovation: An Amalgamation of Patent Law and the Dynamic Competition Regime
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.7.6Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to identify a method to create a balance between competition laws and the patent protection regime so as to promote innovation. The relationship between competition law and the law relating to intellectual property has long been recognized to be a turbulent one. The traditional perspective adopted towards the relationship between the subjects is that one is opposed to the other; where intellectual property laws encourage and protect monopoly, competition laws seek to curb and control it. This research focuses on the possibility of change from the conventional view relating to competition law and intellectual property law by making the approach to these two subjects more innovation centric. The paper examines these apparently paradoxical disciplines from the perspective of innovation and finds that both intellectual property laws and competition laws have a common objective, which is to increase innovation. This paper undertakes conceptual research in order to develop new concepts and to re-interpret the existing ones. It analyses various economic theories of development and the existing conceptual framework pertaining to competition and patent laws. Finally, the paper suggests amendments in the existing law and proposes a new legal and policy framework that reconciles both the fields so as to promote effective innovation crucial for economic development and trade in India.References
World Intellectual Property Organization, Competition and Patents, WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION, available at http://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/developments/competition.html. (last visited on Apr. 23, 2015).
Professor Greg Dolin, Resolving the Patent-Antitrust Paradox: Promoting Consumer Welfare Through Innovation,CENTRE FOR PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY-GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW (May, 2013), http://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Dolin-Patent-Antitrust-Paradox.pdf.
Susan S. DeSantet. al., To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (Oct., 2003), http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/promote-innovation-proper-balance-competition-and-patent-law-and-policy/innovationrpt.pdf.
Bruce Nolan, The Experts: Does the Patent System Encourage Innovation, WSJ, (May 16, 2013), http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB10001424127887323582904578487200821421958.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Patents and Innovation: Trends and Policy Challenges, OECD, available at http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/24508541.pdf (last visited on Apr. 28, 2015).
K. D. Raju, The Inevitable Connection between Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Emerging Jurisprudence and Lessons for India, 18 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 111, 114 (2013).
David J. Teece, Favouring Dynamic over Static Competition: Implications for Antitrust Analysis and Policy, INNOVATION FORUM-GMU (May 15, 2008), http://innovationforum.gmu.edu/2008/papers/dynamic_static.pdf.
Gregory Sidak and David J. Teece, Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law, 5(4) JCLE 581, 631 (2009).
J GREGORY SIDAK AND DAVID TEECE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS IN ASIA 70 ( R. Ian McEwin, 2011).
Sidak & Teece, supra note 8.
OLAV KOLSTSTAD, COMPETITION LAW AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS – OUTLINE OF ECONOMICS – BASED APPROACH, RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW 10 (Josef Drexl, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008).
William J. Kolasky, The Role of Competition in Promoting Dynamic Markets and Economic Growth, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Nov. 12, 2002), http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/200484.htm.
SIDAK & TEECE Supra note 8, p. 585 .
Joseph Alois Schumpeter, an Austrian-American, was one of the most influential economists and political scientists of the 20th Century. He analysed and popularised the term “creative destruction” and propounded a theory which revolutionized the approach to economics and innovation- the Schumpeterian theory of economics.
JOHN A. MATHEWS, REFLECTIONS ON SCHUMPETER’S LOST SEVENTH CHAPTER TO THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ELGAR COMPANION TO NEO-SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS 81 (Horst Hanusch and Andreas Pyka, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007).
Sidak, Gregory and Teece, David, Rewriting the Horizontal Merger Guidelines in the Name of Dynamic Competition, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 885,885 (2009).
Jacob Schmookler was an American economist who is best known as the first economist to successfully explore statistically, the economics of technological innovation at the industrial level, in great detail.
CHRIS FREEMAN, A SCHUMPETERIAN RENAISSANCE?: ELGAR COMPANION TO NEO-SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS 134 (Horst Hanusch and Andreas Pyka, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007).
Thomas C. Leonard, Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction, PRINCETON. EDU (Apr. 28, 2015), https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/McCraw.pdf.
HORST HANUSH AND ANDREAS PYKA, INTRODUCTIONS, ELGAR COMPANION TO NEO-SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS 1 (Horst Hanusch and Andreas Pyka, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007).
Id.
(A Nobel Prize-winning economist who has taught at Stanford and Harvard.)
Jonathan B. Baker, Beyond Schumpeter vs. Arrow: How Antitrust Fosters Innovation, 74 ANTITRUST L.J. 575, 578 (2007).
Id.
Arvind Virmani, The Dynamics of Competition: Phasing of Domestic and External Liberalisation in India, PLANNING COMMISSION (Apr., 2006), http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/wrkpapers/wp_dc_pdel.pdf.
Vikram Chadha and Navdeep Kumar, Impact of India’s New Competition Policy on the Competitiveness of the Indian Industry, 2 WORLD REVIEW OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 120, 121 (2012).
Ministry of Finance, PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Budget 2015-16, (Feb. 27, 2015), http://pib.nic.in/budget2015/ecosurveyRel.aspx.
Rafaelita M. Aldaba, Emerging Issues in Promoting Competition Policy under Regional Frameworks, 2 PIDS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES (2008), (Jan. ,2008), http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0802.pdf.
FICCI IPR Division, Indo-German Conference on Intellectual Property Rights, FICCI, (Mar. 10-11, 2011), http://www.kas.de/wf/ doc/ kas_30136-1522-1-30.pdf?120208121353.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Art. 38 and Art.39.
Dr. S. Chakravarthy, Why India Adopted a New Competition Law, CUTS INTERNATIONAL, (Aug. 2006), http://www.cuts-international.org/ pdf/wiancl.pdf.
Dr.GeetaGouri, Making Markets Work Effectively in India Experience of the Competition Commission, JAPAN FAIR TRADE COMMISSION, (Apr. 30, 2015), http://www.jftc.go.jp/cprc/koukai/sympo/2012notice.files/130222sympo3.pdf.
Carl Shapiro is the Transamerica Professor of Business Strategy in the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. Shapiro had the honor of serving as a Member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during 2011-12. He has been Editor and Co-Editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, among other honors. Shapiro earned his PhD in Economics at M.I.T. in 1981, taught at Princeton University during the 1980s.
The right of any person to restrain any infringement of, or to impose reasonable conditions, as may be necessary for protecting any of his rights which have been or may be conferred upon him under-
(a) the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957);
(b) the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970);
(c) the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999);
(d) the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (48 of 1999);
(e) the Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000);
(f) the Semi-conductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 (37 of 2000).
RAJU, Supra note 6.
Gerald F. Masoudi, Intellectual Property and Competition: Four Principles For Encouraging Innovation, DIGITAL AMERICAS 2006 MEETING, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL WORLD, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, (Apr. 11, 2006), http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/215645.html.
SIDAK & TEECE, Supra note 8.
RAJU, supra note 6.
Pradeep S. Mehta & Ujjwal Kumar, Competition Policy and the Poor, CUTS CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ECONOMICS & ENVIRONMENT,( Apr. 2, 2015), http://www.cuts-international.org/viewpoint.html.
RAJU, supra note 6.
JOSEF DREXL, RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008).
Rishika Sugandh & Siddhartha Srivastava, Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: Indian Jurisprudence, 1(2) IJLLJS (2014).
Abhishek Adlakha, Intellectual Property and Competition Law: The Innovation Nexus, 4 CIRC ISSUE, (Sep. 2, 2014), http://circ.in/pdf/ Intellectual_Property_and_Competition_Law-The_Innovation_Nexus.pdf.
VIRMANI, supra note 25.
Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka, A Roadmap to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, UNIVERSITY OF AUGSBURG, (Jul., 2005), http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/PDF/int/Hanusch&Pyka.pdf.
C.S. Sundaresan, Realism and Applied Economics- An Analysis of Growth Theories from Neo-Schumpeterian to Neo-Keynesian, ICOAE-2009, (May 27, 2009), http://kastoria.teikoz.gr/icoae2/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ articles/2011/10/062-2009.pdf.
RAJU, supra note 6.
KOLSTSTAD, supra note 11.
SIDAK & TEECE, supra note 8.
Mark A. Dutz, Unleashing India’s Innovation- Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, WORLD BANK, (Apr. 03, 2015), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1181699473021/3876782-1191373775504/indiainnovationfull.pdf.
Patil, Gouramma, Critical Analysis of 'The National Innovation (Draft) Act, 2008, SSRN (Mar. 26, 2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2239718.
LexOrbis, India: A Probe On The Proposed National Innovation Act, 2008, MONDAQ, (Oct. 14, 2008), http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/67750/Patent/A+Probe+On+The+Proposed+National+Innovation+Act+2008.
DUTZ, supra note 50.
SIDAK & TEECE, supra note 8.
Intellectual Property: Balancing Incentives with Competitive Access, GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPECTS, (Apr. 22, 2015), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEP/Resources/335315-1257200370513/05--Ch5--128-151.pdf.
RAJU, supra note 6.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The Experts: Does the Patent System Encourage Innovation?, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, (May 16, 2013), http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323582904578487200821421958.
Carl Shapiro, Antitrust, Innovation, and Intellectual Property, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION (Nov. 8, 2005), http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/amcinnovation.pdf.
Id.
RAJU, supra note 6.
Rakesh Basant & Sebastian Morris, Competition Policy in India Issues for a Globalising Economy, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, (Jul. 29, 2000), http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~morris/development/CompPolicy.pdf.
