Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary between Antitrust Law and Patent Law
For over a century, courts and commentators have struggled to find principles that reconcile patent and antitrust law, especially as to patent licensing. We interpret case law and commentary to arrive at three unifying principles for acceptable terms of license. Profit neutrality' holds that patent rewards should not depend on the rightholder's ability to work the patent himself. Derived reward' holds that the patent holder's profits should be earned, if at all, from the social value created by the invention. Minimalism' holds that licensing contracts should not contain more restrictions than are necessary to achieve neutrality. We argue that these principles largely rationalize important decisions of the twentieth century. They also justify the Supreme Court's controversial General Electric decision, which holds that patentholders can set prices charged by their licensees.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2004|
|Publication status:||published as Maurer, S. and S. Scotchmer. "Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary Between Antitrust Law and Patent Law." American Law and Economics Review 8: 476-522. 2006.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Shapiro, Carl, 2003.
" Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
- Shapiro, Carl, 2001. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt87s5j911, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Carl Shapiro, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," Law and Economics 0303004, EconWPA.
- Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," CEPR Discussion Papers 392, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Ted O'Donoghue & Suzanne Scotchmer & Jacques-François Thisse, 1998. "Patent Breadth, Patent Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, 03.
- O'DONOGHUE, Ted & SCOTCHMER, Suzanne & THISSE, Jacques-François, "undated". "Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1314, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)