Direito da Concorrência e Direito da Propriedade Intelectual A recusa de contratar como ilícito concorrencial à luz da jurisprudência norte-americana
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Uma interessante interface entre o Direito da Concorrência e o Direito da Propriedade Intelectual (DPI) consiste na conduta unilateral2 de supostos abusos de direitos de propriedade intelectual (PI) como possível infração às normas antitruste. O presente artigo se propõe a analisar esse tipo de conduta unilateral tomando por base a experiência estadunidense na matéria, convencidos da larga experiência do país em jurisprudência antitruste.
Downloads
Article Details
References
AREEDA, Phillip; KAPLOW, Louis. Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text, Cases. New York: Aspen Law & Business, 5. ed., 1997.
AREEDA, Phillip; TURNER, Donald. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application. Little, Brown, 1980.
AREZZO, Emanuela. Intellectual property rights at the crossroad between monopolization and abuse of dominant position: American and European approaches compared. John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, v. 24, n. 3, 2007. Disponível em: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=935047>. Acesso em: 21 out. 2014.
CALKINS, Stephen. Competition Law in the United States. Wayne State University Law School Research Paper, Oxford University Press, n. 07-14, 2007. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978787. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2014.
CASTRO, Bruno Braz de. “Sham Litigation”: o abuso do direito de petição com efeitos anticoncorrenciais. Revista do IBRAC - Direito da Concorrência, Consumo e Comércio Internacional, São Paulo, v. 18, jul./dez., 2010.
CONSELHO ADMINISTRATIVO DE DEFESA ECONÔMICA. Processo Administrativo: 08012.002673/2007-51. Brasília, Distrito Federal, 30 ago 2012.
Constituição dos Estados Unidos da América - 1787. Biblioteca Virtual de Direitos Humanos. Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Disponível em: http://www.direitoshumanos.usp.br/index.php/Documentos-anteriores-à-criação-da-Sociedade-das-Nações-até-1919/constituicao-dos-estados-unidos-da-america-1787.html. Acesso em: 21 out. 2014.
FORGIONI, Paula Andrea. Os Fundamentos do Antitruste. 4. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais, 2010.
GONÇALVES, Priscila Brolio. A obrigatoriedade de contratar como sanção fundada no direito concorrencial brasileiro. 2008, 341f. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito, São Paulo.
GLEKLEN, Jonathan. Antitrust Liability for Unilateral Refusals to License Intellectual Property: Xerox and its Critics. Intellectual Property News. Intellectual Property Committee of ABA’s Section of Antitrust Law, 2001. Disponível em: https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/grc/Xerox%20-%20IP%20Refusal%20to%20Liscense%20Case%20Examination.PDF. Acesso em: 25 out. 2014.
GULLY, Jennifer, Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., Berkeley Technology Law Journal, v. 13, n. 1, jan. 1998. Disponível em http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol13/iss1/22. Acesso em: 25 out. 2014.
HOVENKAMP, Herbert. Innovation and Competition Policy: Competition Policy and the Scope of Intellectual Property Protection. Cap. 1-8. Jan., 2013 Disponível em: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937207. Acesso em: 15 set. 2014.
HOVENKAMP, Herbert et al. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. Wolters Kluer: 2. ed., 2013.
HOVENKAMP, Herbert; JANIS, Mark; LEMLEY, Mark. Anticompetitive Settlements of Intellectual Property Disputes. Minnesota Law Review, UC Berkeley, Public Law and Legal Theory Research, v. 87, n. 113, 2003; Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=380841. Acesso em: 30 out. 2014.
KLEIN, Benjamin; WILEY JR., John Shepard. Competitive Price Discrimination as an Antitrust Justification for Intellectual Property Refusal to Deal. Antitrust Law Journal, v. 70, n. 3, 2003. Disponível em: http://apps.americanbar.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-pdiscr/specialresources/pdf/02_AB4089_UKLE_599-642.pdf. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2014.
LANGLOIS, Richard N. Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach. George Mason University conference on Dynamic Competition and Antitrust. Washington, dez. 1998. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=204069. Acesso em: 7 out. 2014.
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE. Cornell University Law School. Sherman Antitrust Law. Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act. Acesso em: 2 set. 2014.
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE. Cornell University Law School. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States. Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/221/1#writing-ZS. Acesso em: 2 set. 2014.
LEMLEY, Mark A. A New Balance between IP and Antitrust. Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, v. 13, abril 2007. Disponível em: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=980045. Acesso em: 7 out. 2014.
LEXIS WORKS. Clayton Act. Disponível em: http://www.legisworks.org/congress/63/publaw-212.pdf. Acesso em: 2 set. 2014.
MORGAN, Thomas. Cases and Materials on Modern Antitrust Law and its Origins. American Casebook Series. Minnesota: West Group, 2. ed., 2001.
Page, William H. The Ideological Origins and Evolution of U.S. Antitrust Law. ISSUES IN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY, v. 1, n. 1, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 2008. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=692821. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2014.
SALGADO, Lucia Helena. O Caso Kolynos-Colgate e a Introdução da Economia Antitruste na Experiência Brasileira. In: MATTOS, César (Org.). A Revolução do Antitruste no Brasil: a Teoria Econômica Aplicada a Casos Concretos. São Paulo: Singular, 2003.
SAINT-ANTOINE, Paul. Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property: Intersection or Crossroad? AntitrustConnect Blog, 25 março 2011. Disponível em: http://antitrustconnect.com/2011/03/25/antitrust-law-and-intellectual-property-intersection-or-crossroad/. Acesso em: 29 ago. 2014.
SIDAK, Gregory; TEECE, David. Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, v. 5, n. 4, p. 581-631, dez. 2009. Disponível em: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1479874. Acesso em: 7 out. 2014.
STIGLER, George. The Origin of the Sherman Act. In: SULLIVAN, Thomas. The Political Economy of the Sherman Act. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP. Disponível em: http://transition.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/02-682-011304.pdf. Acesso em: 25 out. 2014.
SYNNOTT, Aidan. From Walker Process to In re DDAVP: Should Direct Purchasers Have Antitrust Standing in Walker Process Claims? GCP The Online Magazine for Global Competition Policy, n. 2, nov. 2008. Disponível em: http://www.paulweiss.com/media/1520110/pw28nov08gcp.pdf. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2014.
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. Competition Law Center. Federal Trade Commission Act. Disponível em: http://gwclc.com/Library/America/USA/The%20Clayton%20Act.pdf. Acesso em: 2 set. 2014.
U.S. 1ST. CIRC. Data General Corporation v. Grumman System Support Corporation 36 F.3d 1147, 1187 (1st Circ. 1994). Disponível em: http://openjurist.org/36/f3d/1147/data-general-corporation-v-grumman-systems-support-corporation. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2014.
U.S. 2ND. CIRC. In Re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation 585 F.3d 667 (2nd Cir. 2009). Disponível em: http://www.patentlyo.com/065525p.pdf. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2014.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. Janeiro, 2017. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/atr/IPguidelines/download. Acesso em: 24 fev. 2017, p.2.