Innovation: An Antitrust Trojan Horse?

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW World Competition Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.54648/woco2021013
Shaurya Aron
{"title":"Innovation: An Antitrust Trojan Horse?","authors":"Shaurya Aron","doi":"10.54648/woco2021013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Innovation is regarded as the spearhead of consumer benefit in a competitive market. However, a strategy of predatory innovation presents the innovator with a shower of opportunities to close down the market and drive out competitors, thereby directly affecting consumer sovereignty. An inquiry into the relationship between innovation and market structures is not only important to assess the impact of such forms of the market on innovative activities, but also for a well-founded and evidenced framing of principles of antitrust laws in respect of Intellectual Property Rights (‘IPRs’). Therefore, this article makes a case for the legal recognition, across jurisdictions including India, of predatory innovation in the context of high-tech markets to uphold the objectives of the antitrust regime, i.e., consumer welfare. The article traces the progressive steps taken by developed jurisdiction in this context and highlights how a similar approach could be adopted by India, fitting its current framework.\nThis article, firstly, discusses the impact the market structure has on the motives and incentives for a manufacturer to innovate; secondly, brings forward the anti-competitive nature of predatory innovation in high tech markets; thirdly, advocates for the need for legal recognition of the conduct of Predatory Innovation while noting the counterarguments; lastly, concludes with identifying the effects of recognizing Predatory Innovation as anticompetitive conduct.\nInnovation, Predatory, Market Structures, Monopoly, Intellectual Property Rights, India, High-tech Markets, Interoperability, Platforms, Network Effects","PeriodicalId":43861,"journal":{"name":"World Competition","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Competition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2021013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Innovation is regarded as the spearhead of consumer benefit in a competitive market. However, a strategy of predatory innovation presents the innovator with a shower of opportunities to close down the market and drive out competitors, thereby directly affecting consumer sovereignty. An inquiry into the relationship between innovation and market structures is not only important to assess the impact of such forms of the market on innovative activities, but also for a well-founded and evidenced framing of principles of antitrust laws in respect of Intellectual Property Rights (‘IPRs’). Therefore, this article makes a case for the legal recognition, across jurisdictions including India, of predatory innovation in the context of high-tech markets to uphold the objectives of the antitrust regime, i.e., consumer welfare. The article traces the progressive steps taken by developed jurisdiction in this context and highlights how a similar approach could be adopted by India, fitting its current framework. This article, firstly, discusses the impact the market structure has on the motives and incentives for a manufacturer to innovate; secondly, brings forward the anti-competitive nature of predatory innovation in high tech markets; thirdly, advocates for the need for legal recognition of the conduct of Predatory Innovation while noting the counterarguments; lastly, concludes with identifying the effects of recognizing Predatory Innovation as anticompetitive conduct. Innovation, Predatory, Market Structures, Monopoly, Intellectual Property Rights, India, High-tech Markets, Interoperability, Platforms, Network Effects
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创新:反垄断的特洛伊木马?
在竞争激烈的市场中,创新被视为消费者利益的先锋。然而,掠夺性创新策略为创新者提供了大量关闭市场和驱逐竞争对手的机会,从而直接影响到消费者的主权。研究创新和市场结构之间的关系不仅对于评估这种形式的市场对创新活动的影响很重要,而且对于在知识产权方面建立一个有充分根据和证据的反垄断法原则框架也很重要。因此,本文为包括印度在内的各个司法管辖区在高科技市场背景下对掠夺性创新的法律承认提出了一个案例,以维护反垄断制度的目标,即消费者福利。本文追溯了发达司法管辖区在这方面所采取的进步步骤,并强调了印度如何采取类似的方法,以适应其目前的框架。本文首先讨论了市场结构对制造商创新动机和激励的影响;其次,提出了高科技市场掠夺性创新的反竞争性质;第三,主张法律承认掠夺性创新行为的必要性,同时注意到反对意见;最后,总结了将掠夺性创新视为反竞争行为的影响。创新,掠夺性,市场结构,垄断,知识产权,印度,高科技市场,互操作性,平台,网络效应
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
The Decriminalization of Cartel Activity in Kuwait: A Regulatory Framework Collective or Collusive Agreements? World Competition Book Review: Regulation 1/2003 and EU Antitrust Enforcement: A Systematic Guide Kris Dekeyser, Céline Gauer, Johannes Laitenberger, Nils Wahl, Wouter Wils & Luca Prete (Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer 2023) Big Data Requests: The Commission’s Powers to Collect Documents in Investigations Under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1