Compulsory licensing of technology and the essential facilities doctrine
We consider compulsory licensing of intellectual property as a remedy for anticompetitive practices. We identify aspects of intellectual property that could warrant a different remedy from those developed for access to physical essential facilities. Based on the analysis, we present a characterisation of optimal compulsory licensing for a simple market. We find that royalty payments offer a greater range of choices to a regulator than fixed fees. Thus, even though the marginal cost of supplying access to intellectual property is zero, some unit charging is likely to be efficient.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Aoki, Reiko & Tauman, Yair, 2001. "Patent licensing with spillovers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 125-130, October.
- Armstrong, M. & Doyle, C. & Vickers, J., 1995.
"The access pricing problem: a synthesis,"
Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics
9532, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
- Reiko Aoki & Sadao Nagaoka, 2002. "The Utility Standard and the Patentability of Basic Research," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-160, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:16:y:2004:i:1:p:13-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.