Subscribe by RSS

Competition Between Copyright Holders? How Horrendous!

Ariel Katz
Saturday, February 11, 2006

The European Commission announced last Wendesday that it has decided to open formal proceedings against CISAC (the “International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers”) and the individual national collecting societies that are members of CISAC and has sent them a Statement of Objections (SO).

The Commission doesn't question the practice of collective administration of performing rights. The SO concerns only certain relatively new forms of copyright exploitation: internet, satellite transmission and cable retransmission of music.

With regard to these new forms of copyright exploitation, what the Commission probably envisages is competition between the national collecting societies, each of which would be allowed to recruit members and customers on a EU-wide basis.   

The merit of the Commission's views requires a separate discussion.  Yesterday, however, CISAC issued a press release reacting to the SO, and containing the following hilarious statement: 

The More Interesting Question in Eli Lilly v. Apotex

Ariel Katz
Thursday, February 9, 2006

The Federal Court of Appeal recently held that where an agreement to assign a patent increases the assignee's market power in excess of that inherent in the patent itself, the assignment may be subject to scrutiny under the Competition Act. This holding shouldn't have been really surprising, but the judge at the lower court thought that since the patent act provides that a patentee may assign the patent, such an assignment--even if results in a lessening of competition--can never be undue.  He also rejected the argument that all that the patent act meant was to reiterate the principle that a property right may be assigned.  In his view, if that was all that the patent act meant to say, that would be a redundancy because it was obvious that patents (like any other property) may be assigned.   

So luckily the court of appeals reversed.  It makes a lot of sense to hold that holders of substitute patents may not be allowed to combine them together and have a carte blanche to eliminate competition between themselves. 

Comment Policy

Thursday, February 9, 2006

We'd like to use this Faculty Blog to foster debate and discussion on issues that we find interesting.  Therefore we welcome the posting of comments.  We encourage readers to post civil, reasoned and on-point comments, but we reserve the right to delete comments that are incompatible with the University of Toronto Statement on Free Speech, or that we otherwise think are inappropriate.  We also reserve the right to ban those who make such comments.

 

Welcome

Thursday, February 9, 2006

Welcome to the faculty blog of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.

 

Subscribe by RSS