TR
EN
TR
Giriş
Yeni Üye
Giriş
Yeni Üye
Literatür
Kitaplar
Son arama sonucu
The Suppression Of Innovation: Testing The Open Nature Of Article 102 TFEU
İçindekiler
Metin
Referans kopyala
Git
:
Git
Sayfaya Git
Favorilere ekle veya çıkar
Görüntüleme Ayarları:
A⇡
Yazı karakterini büyüt
ᴀ⇣
Yazı karakterini küçült
Sayfa numarasını gizle
Bağlantılar
İçindekiler
Foreword
s. V
List of Abbreviations
s. XIII
Chapter 1 - Introduction
s. 1
1.1. The Rationale of the Research
s. 3
1.2. The Scope of the Research
s. 4
1.3. Research Questions
s. 11
1.4. Literature Review
s. 12
1.5. Contribution to the Knowledge
s. 19
1.6. Methodology
s. 20
1.1.1. Doctrinal research methodology
s. 21
1.2.2. Economic analysis of law
s. 22
1.3.3. Comparative research methodology
s. 25
1.7. Structure of the Book
s. 28
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Framework Of Innovation Suppression
s. 31
2.1. Introduction
s. 31
2.2. Definition of innovation
s. 32
2.2.1. Innovation, product design and law
s. 34
2.2.2. The relationship between innovation and competitiveness
s. 38
2.2.2.1. Promoting innovation
s. 40
2.2.2.2. Essential facilities doctrine
s. 44
2.2.2.3. Essential facilities doctrine as a check and balance mechanism between the IP and competition laws
s. 47
2.3. The concept of the new economy
s. 50
2.4. Characteristics of the new economy
s. 53
2.4.1. Creative destruction
s. 55
2.4.2. Disruptive innovation
s. 60
2.4.2.1. Potential problems regarding disruptive innovation
s. 62
2.4.2.2. Is disruptive innovation absolute must for businesses to consider?
s. 65
2.5. The cost of ınnovation: the trade-off between price, quality and innovation
s. 65
2.5.1. The trade-off between innovation and the environment
s. 68
2.5.2. The social cost of innovation
s. 71
2.5.3. The environmental cost of innovation
s. 72
2.6. Conclusion
s. 73
Chapter 3 - Suppression of Innovation in the Context of EU Competition Law
s. 77
3.1. Introduction
s. 77
3.2. Analysis of innovation considerations in the framework of EU competition law
s. 78
3.2.1. Past, present and future of EU competition law: Aims, reforms and practical considerations
s. 78
3.2.1.1. Background of EU competition law: Fundamental theories from the US Antitrust Law
s. 78
3.2.1.2. The Sui Generis Form of EU Competition Law
s. 81
3.2.1.3. Innovation and EU competition law
s. 84
3.2.2. Actual and potential problems concerning the impediment of innovation in terms of EU competition law
s. 90
3.2.2.1. The Densification of Innovation-related Considerations by the EC
s. 93
3.2.2.2. The Current Perspective of the European Commission on Innovation
s. 96
3.2.2.2.1. The EC’s approach to innovation in antitrust matters
s. 97
3.2.2.2.2. Innovation considerations in merger analyses
s. 100
3.3. Theoretical analysis of innovation suppression in terms of competition and intellectual property laws
s. 103
3.3.1. Suppression of innovation as an anti-competitive practice
s. 104
3.3.2. Relevant patent theories on innovation suppression
s. 106
3.3.3. How and why technology is suppressed?
s. 108
3.3.3.1. The lawfulness of innovation suppression practices
s. 111
3.3.3.2. What if technologies remain unpatented?
s. 113
3.4. Conclusion
s. 114
Chapter 4 - Frequently Encountered Patents Related Instances of the Suppression of Innovation in the Context of EU Competition Law
s. 117
4.1. Introduction
s. 117
4.2. The non-use of patent rights
s. 117
4.2.1. The theoretical basis of granting IP rights
s. 118
4.2.2. The non-use of patents under the utilitarian theory
s. 119
4.2.3. Common reasons not to practice patent rights
s. 120
4.2.4. Patent Trolls: Is it just an American phenomenon?
s. 122
4.2.5. Does EU suffer from patent trolls as much as the US?
s. 124
4.2.6. The procedure and remedies offered by the EU patent system
s. 126
4.2.7. Evaluation of the non-use of patents as an abuse of dominance
s. 129
4.2.8. Conclusion
s. 131
4.3. Pay-for-delay agreements
s. 132
4.4. Standardisation
s. 136
4.4.1. Standardisation and its pro-innovation features
s. 140
4.4.2. Does standardisations provide an adequate remedy for the suppression of innovation under Article 102 TFEU?
s. 143
4.5. Spare part designs protection: Suppression of innovation by locking-in consumers and knocking-out competitors
s. 147
4.5.1. Historical development of spare part designs protection
s. 148
4.5.2. Market analysis for spare parts
s. 150
4.5.3. The Uncertainties Regarding the Application of the Repair Clause
s. 151
4.5.4. Proposed Solution in the context of Article 102 TFEU
s. 152
4.5.5. Conclusion
s. 154
4.6. Evergreening patents as blockers of innovation
s. 155
4.6.1. Introduction
s. 156
4.6.1.1. The legal context of the evergreening issue
s. 157
4.6.1.2. Theoretical Examination of Evergreening Patents
s. 160
4.6.2. An application of TFEU provisions in evergreening issues
s. 163
4.6.2.1. Case law regarding evergreening issues
s. 165
4.6.2.2. Evergreening in the context of Article 102 TFEU
s. 167
4.6.3. Conclusion
s. 170
4.7. Overall Conclusion of the Chapter
s. 171
Chapter 5 - Suppression of Innovation via Predatory Innovation and Exclusionary Product Design: The Case of Planned Obsolescence
s. 175
5.1. Introduction
s. 175
5.2. The concept of planned obsolescence
s. 177
5.2.1. The terminological classification for the planned obsolescence
s. 178
5.2.1.1. Built-in obsolescence
s. 178
5.2.1.2. Post-planned obsolescence
s. 180
5.2.2. Consumer perceptions on planned obsolescence
s. 182
5.2.3. The emergence of planned obsolescence in the literature
s. 185
5.2.4. Which fields are currently covering planned obsolescence?
s. 187
5.2.5. Different Aspects of Planned Obsolescence
s. 190
5.2.5.1. Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Planned Obsolescence
s. 190
5.2.5.2. Environmental Aspect of Planned Obsolescence
s. 192
5.2.5.3. Consumerism and Planned Obsolescence
s. 196
5.2.6. An endeavour to set a legal frame for planned obsolescence
s. 197
5.3. Does planned obsolescence underrated or unnoticed issue?
s. 199
5.4. What steps have been taken concerning planned obsolescence in the EU?
s. 204
5.4.1. The pioneer definition and application against planned obsolescence in France
s. 207
5.4.2. Milestone Cases of Planned Obsolescence in national laws
s. 209
5.4.2.1. The Apple Case in France
s. 210
5.4.2.2. The Apple and Samsung Cases in Italy
s. 211
5.4.3. The contractual dimension of planned obsolescence
s. 212
5.4.4. Discussion on planned obsolescence as an unfair commercial practice
s. 214
5.4.5. The applicability of competition law in planned obsolescence
s. 218
5.5. How much freedom do manufacturers have in the product design?
s. 221
5.6. Planned obsolescence as an exclusionary product design practice
s. 226
5.7. A legal treatment of planned obsolescence in the context of the EU competition law
s. 229
5.7.1. Average consumer principle and information asymmetry
s. 229
5.7.1.1. Is planned obsolescence a form of deception?
s. 229
5.7.1.2. Is it possible to benefit from the Lemon problem to conceptualise planned obsolescence?
s. 230
5.7.2. How does planned obsolescence suppress innovation?
s. 232
5.7.3. Testing Article 101 TFEU in the context of planned obsolescence
s. 238
5.7.4. Testing Article 102 TFEU in the context of planned obsolescence
s. 238
5.8. Conclusion
s. 244
Chapter 6 - Final Conclusion
s. 247
6.1. Summary of the Research
s. 247
6.2. Contribution and Recommendations of the Research
s. 252
6.3. Areas of Future Research
s. 257
Bibliography
s. 261
Bottom Search Toolbar Highlight Text
Yükleniyor...
Web sitemizde çerezler (=cookies) kullanmaktayız. Sitemizi kullanmaya devam ederek çerezleri kullanmamıza izin vermiş oluyorsunuz. Çerezler hakkında ayrıntılı bilgileri
Kişisel Verilerin İşlenmesine Yönelik Aydınlatma Metni'nin Çerezler Hakkında Bilgilendirme
başlıklı bölümünde bulabilirsiniz.
Custom Button
Tamam