Search results

Intellectual property rights and competition policy are intimately related. In this chapter I survey the economic literature analyzing the interaction between intellectual property law and competition law and how the boundary between these two policies is drawn in practice. Recognizing that intellectual property rights and competition law can interact in many different ways, the presentation focuses on several key issues. The economic literature on the interaction between competition law and intellectual property rights shows that these regulatory systems are consistent in terms of basic principles. Significant tensions exist, however, and it is difficult to balance IPR and competition law in practice. The significant differences in approach between the United States and the European Union simply reflect the underlying reality that efforts to achieve a sensible balance do not result in policy harmonization.

The purpose of the paper is to prove that the abandonment of the issues of competition in the multilateral framework is not an ultimate verdict that strictly separates the two public policies: trade and competition policy.

The paper critically examines the conflicts between the two policies (competition and trade), through an insight analysis and case interpretation, evaluates different opinions and makes some suggestions to support the logical conclusion that these two fields cannot be separated.

The final consideration is the synergy between the two is an imperative; or in other words, any specific policy dealing with only one of the fields will be successful in the long term only by taking into consideration the effects in the other field.

The World Trade Organization had to make a choice not between the half full or the half empty glass but between a full glass – difficult to manage because of the danger to spill over – and a half‐full glass – easy to manage because of the large margin.

The paper critically examines the conflicts between the two policies (competition and trade), through an insight analysis and case interpretation.

As transnational capital continues to seek fair access to all international markets and increasingly, a global level playing field, so competition policy has emerged as a highly salient issue. This article sets out specifically to explore the international dimension of competition policy. Although it readily accepts the economic and trade rationale for some form of common international rules, and to this end briefly accounts for earlier attempts and current strategies of policy coordination within international bodies from the G7, the WTO and the European Union, it raises doubts as to its immediate attainability. Competition policy not only remains a complex issue, but any efforts to establish some form of global regime necessitates consideration of the process and likelihood of policy convergence, and crucially demands that issues of governance including accountability and transparency are openly discussed. As a regional entity it is argued that the EU represents the best model for an international accord on competition policy.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Countries have differences in competition policies, which are cause for friction in international trade and investment. This paper discusses those issues and develops a model to try to explain the willingness of countries to participate in a cooperative competition policy. The model suggests that countries which are economically advanced, active in trade, and already involved in trade regimes are most likely to cooperate in competition policy.

Academic library consortia activity has become an integral part of academic libraries’ operations. Consortia have come to assert considerable bargaining power over publishers and have provided libraries with considerable economic advantage. They interact with publishers both as consumers of publishers’ products, with much stronger bargaining power than individual libraries hold, and, increasingly, as rival publishers themselves. Are consortia changing the relationship between academic libraries and publishers? Is the role of academic library consortia placing academic libraries in a position that should and will attract the attention of competition policy regulators? Competition policy prohibits buying and selling cartels that can negatively impact the free market on which the Canadian economic system, like other Western economies, depends. Competition policy as part of economic policy is, however, only relevant where we are concerned with aspects of the market economy. Traditionally, public goods for the greater social and cultural benefit of society are not considered part of the market economic system. If the activities of academic library consortia are part of that public good perspective, competition policy may not be a relevant concern. Using evidence gained from in-depth interviews from a national sample of university librarians and from interviews with the relevant federal government policy makers, this research establishes whether library consortia are viewed as participating in the market economy of Canada or not. Are consortia viewed by librarians and government as serving a public good role of providing information for a greater social and cultural benefit or are they seen from a market-economic perspective of changing power relations with publishers? Findings show government has little in-depth understanding of academic library consortia activity, but would most likely consider such activity predominantly from a market economic perspective. University librarians view consortia from a public good perspective but also as having an important future role in library operations and in changing the existing scholarly publishing paradigm. One-third of librarian respondents felt that future consortia could compete with publishers by becoming publishers and through initiatives such as open source institutional repositories. Librarians also felt that consortia have had a positive effect on librarians’ professional roles through the facilitation of knowledge building and collaboration opportunities outside of the home institution.

Provides an institutional insight into competition policy making in the European Union (EU). Focuses primarily on the core EU institution, namely the European Commission, and specifically the Directorate General for Competition (DGIV) which has assumed the stature of an autonomous agency and manages the first truly supranational EU policy. As its authority has grown the EU competition rules have impacted on the activities of all businesses operating within the single market. In short, the Commission operates as the world’s leading regional anti‐trust enforcement agency and as such it may serve as the ideal prototype for a larger international accord as pressure mounts for the establishment of some form of global competition rules. Accounts for the origins of policy and the evolution of DGIV, analyses the EU institutional setting, provides an assessment of policy and accentuates the inevitability of competition policy reform in the late 1990s.

Entrepreneurial competence plays a decisive role in entrepreneurship success. To promote the employment of college students and accelerate economic growth through entrepreneurial activities, the Chinese government and universities encourage the use of multiple inputs to boost holistic entrepreneurship education and training. This study aims to assesses the entrepreneurial competence of college students by analysing the effects of entrepreneurship education and policy implementation in China.

The quantitative approach considered a large sample of 12,269 students, who participated in entrepreneurship education in Chinese “double-first-class” universities, to construct a theoretical model of their entrepreneurial competence. Entrepreneurship competition was introduced as a mediating variable in this model.

This study revealed that college students develop entrepreneurial competence by participating in entrepreneurship competitions unlike students who participate in regular entrepreneurship education. Additionally, there was a significant difference in the measured impact of entrepreneurship policy between students who participated in entrepreneurship competitions and those who did not.

The effects of the implementation of entrepreneurship education and policy were studied using a quantitative design. Additionally, this study highlights the effect of entrepreneurship competitions with empirical evidence from China, and contributes to the discussion of entrepreneurship education at schools and entrepreneurship policy for policymakers.

“Re‐shaping” policy provides the opportunity for an inclusive approach to decision‐making in dialogue with existing member‐states and anticipated new members. The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the governance process that underpinned the modernisation of EC competition policy (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, effective 1 May 2004) can be considered inclusive.

A multi‐level genre is used to describe EC governance with respect to the implementation of revised competition policy. The process is evaluated through the levels of involvement of the key stakeholders, i.e. firms (national, European and non‐European), consumers, national competition authorities (NCAs), the European Commission, and member states. The main explanatory vehicles relied on are institutionalism governance, policy network analysis and inter‐governmentalist models of governance.

Multi‐level governance was apparent as member states established national working parties and committees that paralleled similar consultation in Brussels. Good governance was evident through the democratic process that involved interest groups in policy network analysis. Ultimate authority, however, remains vested in the Commission, vouchsafed through legislation and institutionalism.

This paper contributes to the small but growing literature that illustrates the complex interaction between governance and implementation of public policy.