The economic activities have impacts on the social and political sectors in many ways either directly or indirectly. The economics principles have encouraged people and dependable agencies either from the government or private sector to monitor and control the economics environment so that the public interest can be prioritized and guarded. This process will offer the best environment and conditions that businesses or other people who engage in economic activities can do plus conduct their affairs in an environment that is fair and just giving. Every participant in the economic activity has an opportunity to realize their full potential and hence realize their desired goals and objectives in the business. Experts and professionals therefore have tried to come up with regulations that are holistic with the intention of protecting the consumers or the public. They are also trying to protect and guide businesses and other economic activities so that participants are encouraged, due to the just and encouraging environment to conduct their economic activities. Many responsible governments either at the state or federal level understand the benefits that accrue from the economic activities in the society such as creation of jobs and employment opportunities to millions of people. It also includes providing taxes and revenues to the responsible government and private agencies that help governments run and conduct their business of serving people, encouraging growth and developments across all the sectors in the society. As well as enabling people to realize their potential and get empowered among other benefits that are realized from economic activities. Government and the private sectors among other responsible authorities on issues of economics, therefore, have been on the front line to create an enabling environment that takes care of the interest of the public (consumers) as well as the organizations and individuals that engage in such economic activities. As results of such engagements, they have developed rules and regulations seen in the laws that guide economic activities. Such laws and regulations apply mostly to open economies that forces of the market determine and shape many aspects relating to the economic activities in that particular economic environment. However, this paper presents the relationships that exist between the antitrust laws and the intellectual property rights, as among the critical legislation that guides many economic activities in the open economies noted in most parts of the world.
The concept of globalization has encouraged increased competition between and among different economic or business enterprises that has opened the market of most countries and regions. The globalization concept as realized in the contemporary times, therefore, has created opportunities as well as challenges for businesses. This move has also compelled business and economic activities and enterprises to be responsive and institute measures that can help them better realized their business goals and objectives with ease. This happens irrespective of the increased and stiff competition that businesses operate under. open economic realize where competition either come from the local economic players of the international business organizations that have expanded and exploited such liberalized economic markets. Antitrust law and intellectual property among others legislations, have played a major role in providing a conducive environment for both the public ( Consumers) as well as the business enterprises that engage in the open economic markets experience and, hence, provide a fair ground for all the participants sin the economy (Leslie, 2011).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The antitrust laws described as the regulations formulated either by the government at both the state or federal level that target to regulate and control the business environment done by corporations or individuals with the goal and objective of promoting fair competition among participants in the economy as well as profit the consumers (public). The laws are described by different names in different countries and regions a such as competition laws. The common Antitrust laws that have impacted the economic activities for over a decade since they were initiated include the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. These laws were both passed in the year 1914 indicating the seriousness that the legislators had in relation to improving the economic welfare of the people and the business organizations at a large (Herndon, 2002). However, before the stated Acts, there was the Sherman Act that had been introduced in the year 1980. Prior to the introduction of the Act, the open economics have noted some instances that had led to massive losses and affected the consumers (public) negatively. Where business exploited the consumers leading to abnormal profits as well as providing unfair competition where businesses that were small and still growing collapsed impacting the economy negatively. These results prompted the formation of such laws that have to be relevant since time immemorial. The first and foremost goal of the Acts was to discourage the formation of the cartels in the open economies among other collusive actions by individual businesses persons or organizations, that results to distorting the market forces especially touching on the demand and supply in the open market economies (Ghidini, 2006). Cartels and mergers influenced the activities in the economy such as resulting to induced consumption and affecting the market prices among others actions that negatively affected the economy. The second key objective of the Act was to restrict mergers and business acquisitions either by the business organizations or individual especially in situations that such action would reduce or remove in totality competition in the open markets of the countries or regions where such economic activities occur. The main concern in the second objective is to protect the consumers because of the many benefits that results from competition such as keeping the prices low. This benefits consumers and encouraging consumption, and enhance competition which results in higher quality in terms of services offered. The production of quality goods benefits the consumers enhances greater innovation, as well as competition, presents more choices and option to consumers among others satisfying the consumer demand and the reality of diversity is appreciated and respected. The second objective of the Act therefore strictly benefits the consumers (Public) at large. The third key objective of the Act was to prohibit the creation of the monopoly. In instances the only alternative to stopping creation of monopoly, is to limit the power and discourage the use of such privileges and power wrongly that can encourage consumption among other economic activities because of the power that monopoly has to the economy (Gambrell, 2001). Monopoly in many contexts has discouraged economic growth and mostly results in stagnation and deterioration of the economy. This is through the experience that countries and regions have had as a result of the monopoly economies. The three key objectives therefore of the Antitrust laws have determined and provided the framework and foundation in which many of the courts or legal process instituted either by individuals or the business organizations have used in their quest to get justice, in the event that they may feel aggrieved by an individual or organization whose actions they view as contradicting the Antitrust laws (Saint-Antoine, 2011).
Intellectual property rights commonly abbreviated as IP on the other hand presents legislative processes, Act, and clauses that intend to protect the monopoly especially in the creation of the intellect or the mind such as through inventions, designs, literary and artistic works, images and names among others that are used in commerce. The intellectual property rights cuts across many legal concerns and processes. in the conduct of economic activities either by individuals or organization that mostly is reflected through the trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, industrial designs as well as geographical indications among others that relate and link to the creation of the mind or intellect either by an individual or the organization. The IP rights, provide legal clauses, statements and positions that enables people to earn profits for what they created using their minds as well as earn the recognition from the society. that might be in the form of appreciation and rewards from organizational bodies and individual that feel greatly impacted by such creation of the mind by either the individual or the organization (Anderman, 2007). The intellectual property rights thus have tried to look at both parties that benefit from such creative outcomes. such as the consumers (Public) as well as the innovators interest so that they can encourage creativity and innovation among other people, as well as those that have already innovated and created relevant products that led to the implementation of the intellectual property rights. Also, the right balance that leads to the creation of laws that protect intellectual property rights also tried to create an environment that encourages innovation and creativity so that many innovative products can be produced that have positive economic benefits and outcomes in economies of many countries or its regions at large. Competition is also another aspect that has encouraged innovation as it has many economic benefits as also noted in the intellectual property rights. There are broad avenues in which the intellectual property rights are executed in the legal frameworks such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks among others. It is thus imperative to briefly describe what each attribute says regarding the legal analysis and presentation (France, 2002). A copyright, is a legal term that shows the rights that creators and innovators have over their works especially noted in the artistic works and fields such as sculptures, paintings, drawings and music among others as well as the literal fields that include issue such as books, articles and advertisements among others that have to be respected and consent given by the owners in the event that one requires or has an interests of using them or engage in any business activity. Patents, on the other hand, presents legal rights that inventors and innovators are given an exclusive right that allows the innovators to decide how or whether the invention they have made can be used by others or not and to what extent. The legal claws, thus, allow the inventor to make technical information about the invention that becomes public in the patent document published (Drexl, 2008). Trademarks on the other hand, also present the intellectual property rights where they allow the individual or organization to put a sign that allows the business organization or individual products and services be distinguished from the others enterprises as a result of that unique signs. The concept of trademark thus has proved to exist since many historical times priors to the formalization and creation of such legal Acts as noted presently. It was noted on the products of artisans at the ancient times where marks and signs that identified them were placed strategically on their products to help them distinguishes from other others. However, the formalization of the concept in the business and economic contexts thus is recent affair many business and economic activities were formalized and professionalized in the recent times. Industrial designs on the other hand also displayed issues related to the intellectual property rights. It constitutes the aesthetic as well as the ornamental aspects of an article mostly presented in three-dimensional features that include the shape of the product, the dimensions of the product or article as well as the surface f the product or article (Takigawa, 2003). Finally, the geographical indication indicate the geographical origin of creation product or service that intend to show recognition and appreciation of the region with their unique qualities that would value to the product and give the product an advantage in the market simply because of the origin of the product as a result of the good name, image and reputation of the place. The subject has become very influential in the contemporary times where the image of certain products that come from the different countries are perceived differently in terms of quality where they might determine a consumer decisions greatly in terms of the product that they purchases as well as the number (quantity) and expected outcomes from the products (Avisaxena, 2013). Those countries that are known for counterfeits that produce substandard products might be impacted negatively y such intellectual property right as it determines many aspects of the decision-making process in the consumer's mind. Indicating the geographical locations, therefore, might look a simple affair by it contributes and determines to a large extent issues and decisions reached in the markets.
The two legal concepts that impact the economic activities thus have raised many concerns and questions to people on the relationship that exists between them. There are noted similarities that exist between the antitrust laws as well as the intellectual property rights as well as contradictions and differences between the two legal concepts where some have argued from the point to intersection, as well as other, have viewed the legal concept from the point of crossroads. The relationship between the two legal concepts that impacts the economy in many ways either directly or indirectly thus shave shown tension and anxiety in the application of the two legal concepts as in some instances there have contradicted their concepts and ideologies behind them. First and foremost, the main objective of the antitrust law is to end monopoly by encouraging fair competition between and among different stakeholders either at an individual level or organizational level in the economic activities and businesses (Fordham Competition Law Institute, Hawk & Fordham University, 2013). It has targeted thus to end monopoly and possible resultant outcomes that might prove a hindrance to realization of the economic goals of countries and regions at large especially as noted in closed economies unlike many cases in the open market economies. On the contrary, the main goals of the intellectual property rights is to encourage monopoly by empowering the inventors and giving them legal ‘shields’ and clauses that they can eliminate competition or delay a competition among other options that are available in the many ways that the intellectual property rights can be exercised and thus encourages monopoly. The tension that exists between the two legal concepts that shape the economic activities more often impacts tow issues in the economics of the countries or regions where they operate. The first economic concept impacted by the resulting tension between the two legal ideologies is the market power. The antitrust law intend and target to control the market power through elimination of the monopoly that can see single bossiness organizations operation in the monopolistic environment have the market power to determine many issues and economic activities such the prices for goods and services offered, the den and supply aspects of the economic environment among other important factors that shape the economic activities (Enevaz, 2004). In an ideal situation, according to the objectives of the antitrust laws, market forces that include the demand and supply factors should be left free to determine the economic decisions and activities such as the prices that services rendered and goods offered in the market have. However, the intellectual property rights legal provision have countered the very main objective that the antitrust laws intended to reform and eliminate that mainly results from the monopoly economic environments. The intellectual property laws reintroduce and reinstate the concept of power control in the market where inventors can influence and determine the power control instruments in the market because of the privilege that they get f resulting from the legal provisions in the intellectual property laws (Caggiano & Muscolo, 2012). When an individual or organization have control over market power, they might exploit the benefits and clauses and hence exploit the market and economic aspects such as introduction of high prices on the market that do not commemorate with the service rendered or the good introduced In the market that might fail to protect and shield the consumers (public) that is the main objective of the antitrust laws. The dilemma that such conflicts have presented therefore have watered-down the very reasons and goals that were intended at the first time that such legal provisions were made and hence rendered them ( antitrust laws) ineffective. Additionally, such provisions in the intellectual property rights have made individuals and companies that have legal cases in the courts of law to escape prosecution and resultant consequences as it has made such legal cases difficult to prosecute because many of the provisions in the intellectual property rights have been used in the defense of such legal cases in the courts, ultimately defeating the logic that initially as placed when the legal provisions were made with the intention of encouraging competition and protecting the consumers from exploitation resulting from monopoly (Correa, 2007). The relationship between the two legal provisions of antitrust laws as well as that of intellectual property rights have showed tensed relationship in some incidences that have made justification of certain action as whether legal or illegal become challenging. The tension thus has created and led to gaps in the legal provisions that people and organization has used to enhance activities such as cartels and mergers among others that have had adverse economic impact that have exposed the consumers from exploiters sin the economic markets. The second economic aspect affected that results from the tensed relationships between the two legal provisions is the dynamic efficiency. Dynamic efficiency is relevant in the long run time of an economic set up that determines the optimal efficiency over time. The dynamic of efficiency is contrasted with the allocative efficiency where the locative efficiency is concerned with the optimal efficiency within a static situation. The dynamisms in the market Is relevant as it determines and control market process, hence, resulting to stable market prices over a given period of time and thus eliminate or reduces that chance of manipulation that can results to exploitation of the consumers by business entities either at an individual level or organization level that would contravene the essential reasons that the antitrust laws were created and, hence, make theme irrelevant and ineffective as a results of the tensed relationships between the antitrust laws and the intellectual property laws (Hovenkamp, Janis, Lemley, Leslie & Carrier, 2010). The essence of the intellectual property laws is to encourage innovation and inventions because of the benefits that results from such laws and right given to the inventors and innovators in the different properties that merit such categories and recognition as well as the resultant benefits. Among its primary objective is to encourage innovation that has proved relevant to the market and economies of countries or regions at large. However, in the event that antitrust laws that intent to protect and enhance competition in the market are designed such that they reduce the level or extent to which the intellectual property laws can be used and applied, and ultimately reduce the rewards and benefits that the legal provision and rights give to such inventors and innovators resulting from their creative and intellect thinking, then it can discourage the creativity, innovation and inventing because the objective of the intellectual property rights will be challenged, defeating logic that had first been placed on such developments. It, thus, would create tension between the two legal provisions that impact the economic market and activities (Arena, Bergmann & Himes, 2013). It would discourage research and innovation as potential innovators would be discouraged to venture in such avenues and opt for other issues in life as well as the economic activities. The dynamic efficiency of different products in the economic market that would be reduced ultimately reduce the broad choice spectrum that consumers get in a competitive market that is free from monopoly and hence giving them a broad spectrum of choice and taste in the economic markets. Such dynamism in terms of products also ensures that the consumers benefit from other benefits such as reduced prices as well as other market factors controlled and determined by the market forces of demand and supply. The tensed relationship between the two legal provision that continue to impact either directly and indirectly the economic market and continue to presents the dilemma when the objective and goals of the two legal provisions are compared and contrasted (Czapracka, 2009). There are also actions that can result from the gaps noted in the two legal provisions that can make those having the intellectual property rights abuse the privileges that come with such rights and hence destabilize the market efficiency because of the unfair economic advantage that results from such abuses. For example, those that are privileged to have the patent rights, might arm twist the condition and such privileges to determine other economic factors that are not directly linked to the patent rights before they can issue such license to the licensees. For example, in a case of a drug company, they might issue a condition that might compel those that seek the license from the company to operate or get other necessary materials from sister companies or specific companies that such organizations might be interested in because of the economic benefits. Such actions might distort the economic forces and increases the possibility of exploitation and thus defeat the logic that such legal provisions were designed to protect. Such actions would adversely affect the competition in the market that can distort the market realities encouraging manipulation of the consumers as well as creating an unfair business environment that would defeat the main reasons that such legal acts under the antitrust laws as well as intellectual property rights present (Angelov, 2014). The two legal provisions thus have continued to witness tensed relationship between them. Since every country or region has formulated its antitrust laws or competition, laws, as well as the intellectual property rights, it has resulted to many legal provisions that some are diverse while some similar as countries also have their economic interest in the contemporary world that has shaped to some extent the laws formulated. In some instances, countries have presented biased laws and provision that encourage their local industries and economic interest for example that give certain products or goods made in that country an advantage the market and economic activities such as through concept of subsidies that that has helped the prices of commodities that get such privileges ultimately cheaper when compared to others in the liberalized economic markets in the contemporary times. It, therefore, indicates that countries also can manipulate the antitrust laws and formulate economic policies and laws that when criticality analyzed limits or discourages the proper working of the antitrust laws as well as the intellectual property laws (Hovenkamp et al., 2010). However, some countries have also formulated restrictive laws that have tried to fill the gaps that exist in the intellectual property rights that enhance abuses and manipulation thus distorting the economic market forces as noted in some countries such as Singapore. The legal provisions made to reinforce the intellectual property rights and hence reduce the anticompetitive behaviors that can results from such actions and manipulation for instance has created provisions that can encourage arbitration between licensors and licensees in the event that on party might feel aggrieved by actions of the other that mostly works in the patent rights provisions of the intellectual property rights. Tribunals and arbitration therefore have been developed to listen and rule on such cases with the intention o promoting dialogue between and among business organizations and individuals that engage in economic activities to encourage and reinforce the original intention that led to the creation of antitrust laws as well as the intellectual property rights that had objectives and holistic ideals that protected both consumers as well as business entities at an organizational or individual appoints of view.
Some also have argued and viewed the relationship between the antitrust laws and the intellectual property laws as intersectional, complementing and support each other. The antitrust laws have targeted to create markets that promote efficiency resulting from the anti-monopolistic environments. This therefore, encourages invention and innovation shaped by consumer demands and expectations as well as other market factors; this means the two laws present a clean environment in which the benefits as intended in the original idea of the two legal provisions come through with ease, helping economies of countries and regions at large. The rewards, therefore, result from innovation maintained in realizing the initial objectives as stated when formulating the legal provisions (Avisaxena, 2013). Some also analyze the relationship between the two legal provisions to complement each other from the following points of view. They note that the intellectual property right offer rewards in the innovation clauses and therefore it somehow creates anticompetitive action by default because of the privileges give to the innovators. It, however, cautions them prior to engaging in such actions of innovation that they should not use it as a tool that encourages anticompetitive behaviors in the markets. in the event that an individual or organization in the business sectors is discovered to be exploiting the privileges to enhance anticompetitive behaviors, then reinforcements in the antitrust laws or competition laws shall be instituted, to regulate the extent which the intellectual property rights and the resultant privileges and benefits can work. They, therefore, encourage monitoring and evaluation of the players involved in the economic activities by government agencies as well as the private sector that is mandated in controlling and regulating the economic markets and business environment in either countries or regions as a whole. There are commissions formed in different countries or regions as well as arbitration and tribunals formed to intervene in cases and concerns related to the two legal provisions. The concept of “rule of reasons” as well as that of “cost-benefits analysis based on economics interests” shall be used and applied in determining the outcomes of such concerns that touch the two legal provisions (Leslie, 2011). Such commissions have applied the noted concepts that have been used as parameters to determine the decisions taken by such commissions. This means they can address the issues holistically bearing in mind the interest of the consumers as well as the interests of the businesses involved in the economic activities. This can either affect those at an organizational level or individual level in relation to the two legal provisions of the antitrust laws as well as the act of the intellectual property rights. Such commissions have clarified number of issues at the country or regional level that has encouraged business engagements and the resultant economic benefits. Because in the event that such commissions would not intervene in cases that touch on the antitrust laws as well as the intellectual property laws. Therefore it would have adverse negative impacts on the economies of the countries or regions that such business entities operate from. The commission thus has become relevant because of the many gaps that exist between the two legal provisions that have led to contradictions and contrasting interpretation of the law especially from the intellectual property rights that have many privileges that people have used to contravene the antitrust laws.
The relationship between the two thus has shown incidences that tension between the antitrust laws as well as incidences that show cooperation and complementing each other. The subject thus has turned to be a philosophical as many people that either supports the two legal provisions would either argue from one of the points noted above. However, irrespective of the view and position taken by side, the original objectives and intentions should be encouraged. This because they were holistic and objective that had taken care of the consumers as well as the interests of the businesses players in the economy. This results in a win-win situation for both parties and economic beneficiaries (Drexl, 2008). Since business environment, as well as economic situation, is not static but dynamic, the laws that are formulated in the antitrust laws as well as those in the intellectual property rights. Therefore the laws can be reviewed regularly by respected legal agencies and business entities among other relevant stakeholders. This move raised can be addressed objectively that encourage positive economic activities that take care both interests of all the players in the economy as was initially intended when the legal provision was formulated. The intellectual property rights also have attracted interesting debates that focus on the limits and application of the concepts. Some have pointed out the criteria that can be used to give value to certain incidences and scenario such as cultural values and benefits and how w communities can protect their cultural heritage and attributes that some have used to exploit and benefit economically to the expense of the community that has the rights to the culture. Such thinking and points of view have enhanced the debate that exists between the two legal provisions and the limits that can be used regarding application as well as the parameters for use by both to determine the actions that can be viewed to either conform to the requirements of the laws or contravene the legal provision.
In conclusion, the antitrust laws, as well as the intellectual property rights, have impacted the economic environment of most countries and region positively by ensuring that economic benefits that result from the competition are realized and benefits both the consumer as well as the business entities involved in the economic activities. The two legal provisions have indicated tension and contradicting moments regarding interpretation and analysis of current economic contexts that has resulted in the different views and position among the public about the impact and benefits that the two provisos provide. It is thus imperative to address the gaps that exist between the two laws objectively to enhance the initial goals and objective to realize by all the stakeholders involved in the economic activities.
References
Anderman, S.D. ( 2007). The Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy. Cambridge University Press.
Angelov, M. (2014). The "Exceptional Circumstances" Test: Implications For Frand Commitments From The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under Article 102 Tfeu. European Competition Journal , 10(1): 37-67
Arena, A., Bergmann, B., & Himes, J. L. (2013). Two Bodies Of Law Separated By A Common Mission: Unilateral Conduct By Dominant Firms At The Ip/Antitrust Intersection In The Eu And The Us. European Competition Journal , 9 (3): 623-675. doi:10.5235/17441056.9.3.623
Avisaxena, C. (2013,Feb 15). Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Confronting Paradigms. LEGAL SERVICES INDIA . Retrieved from http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/competition-law-and-intellectual-property-rights-confronting-paradigms-1453-1.html
Caggiano, G., & Muscolo, G. (2012). Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Correa, c. (2007, Nov 1 ). A Competition Approach to Intellectual Property Protection . INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . Retrieved from http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/a-competition-approach-to-intellectual-property-protection
Czapracka, K. (2009). Intellectual property and the limits of antitrust: A comparative study of US and EU approaches. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar.
Drexl, J. (2008). Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Enevaz, S. (2004). Against Immunity For Unilateral Refusals To Deal In Intellectual Property: Why Antitrust Law Should Not Distinguish Between Up And Other Property Rights. Berkeley Technology Law Journal , 19(2): 741-784.
Fordham Competition Law Institute, Hawk, B. E., & Fordham University. (2013). Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Competition Law Institute: International Antitrust Law & Policy . Huntington, NY: Juris Pub.
France, S. (2002). Mostly Smooth Transition. ABA Journal , 88(1): 73.
Gambrell, J. B. (2001). The Evolving Interplay of Patent Rights and Antitrust Restraints in the Federal Circuit. (Cover story). Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal , 9(2): 137.
Ghidini, G. (2006). Intellectual Property and Competition Law: The Innovation Nexus . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Herndon, J. B. (2002). Intellectual property, antitrust, and the economics of aftermarkets. Antitrust Bulletin , 47(2/3): 309.
Hovenkamp, H., Janis, M. D., Lemley, M. A., Leslie, C. R., & Carrier, M. A. (2010). IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied To Intellectual Property Law. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Leslie, C. R. (2011). Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Cases and Materials . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saint-Antoine, p. (2011. March 25). Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property: Intersection or Crossroad?. ANTITRUST CONNCET.COM. Retrieved from http://antitrustconnect.com/2011/03/25/antitrust-law-and-intellectual-property-intersection-or-crossroad/
Takigawa, T. (2003). Antitrust intervention in intellectual property licensing and unilateral refusal to license: a comparative analysis of Japanese and U.S. policies. Antitrust Bulletin, 48(4), 885-920.
