ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Competition law defence"
m (Reverted edits by 167.206.140.130 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Equitable defences: estoppel and laches) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* [[Interoperability exceptions]] - a useful goal would be to establish an interoperability defence | * [[Interoperability exceptions]] - a useful goal would be to establish an interoperability defence | ||
* [[Independent invention defence]] | * [[Independent invention defence]] | ||
| + | * [[IBM and TurboHercules, 2010]] - The [[European Commission]] is investigating IBM's tying of software to hardware; since IBM has listed patents possibly infringed by TurboHercules, if the Commission decides that IBM has to change it's activity in order to allow competition, they might also have to rule on whehter those patents can still block competition | ||
| + | * [[Equitable defences: estoppel and laches]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Latest revision as of 16:58, 22 October 2010
The competition law defence is a way of legally justifying a patent violation. If the patent holder has not offered to license the patent under fair terms, then in some jurisdictions, it's possible that violation can be legally justified by the competition law of that country.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Antitrust doesn't work
- Interoperability exceptions - a useful goal would be to establish an interoperability defence
- Independent invention defence
- IBM and TurboHercules, 2010 - The European Commission is investigating IBM's tying of software to hardware; since IBM has listed patents possibly infringed by TurboHercules, if the Commission decides that IBM has to change it's activity in order to allow competition, they might also have to rule on whehter those patents can still block competition
- Equitable defences: estoppel and laches
