Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Electronic dissertations at Stanford
Gestion et commercialisation des droits sportifs de la Fédération française de football: Entente verticale sanctionnée
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
US Developments after Leegin
Friday, October 30, 2009
Price competition in the distribution of books
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Die Privatkopie und die deutsche Verfassung
A New Structured Rule of Reason Approach for RPM?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Economic evidence in competition cases
Saturday, October 24, 2009
India: Competition Appellate Tribunal Formed
US Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009
Ausschaltung eines preisaktiven Internetanbieters
Das Bundeskartellamt misst dem beschriebenen Vorgehen hier eine über den Einzelfall hinausgehende wettbewerbliche Bedeutung zu. Die Ausschaltung des einen preisaktiven Internetanbieters war dazu geeignet und bestimmt, die auf dem deutschen Markt für den Handel mit Hörgeräten insgesamt herrschende Preisstabilität aufrechtzuerhalten bzw. wiederherzustellen. Ist aber der Preiswettbewerb auf Einzelhandelsebene ohnehin eingeschränkt, so wiegt jede weitere Verhinderung vorstoßenden Wettbewerbs umso schwerer"
Online distribution of music: joint statement
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Oracle-Sun Deal: Reasons to Support it?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Google Book Settlement and Antitrust Issues
Randal C. Picker, The Google Book Search Settlement: A New Orphan-Works Monopoly?
5 Journal of Competition Law and Economics 383 (2009)
Jerry A. Hausman and J. Gregory Sidak, Google and the Proper Antitrust Scrutiny of Orphan Books, 5 Journal of Competition Law and Economics 411 (2009)
New, "consumer friendly" EU competition website
Antitrust and Innovative Markets
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Advice to the Obama Administration on Antitrust Policy: Two Perspectives Compared
Spencer Waller and Jennifer Woods, "Antitrust Transitions".
Friday, October 16, 2009
New Zealand: Abuse of Dominant Position in Markets for High-speed Data Transmission
Neelie Kroes on Standards
Competition in the Publishing Industry in Italy?
Trade Mark Exhaustion and Implicit Consent
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Google Chef-Justitiar auf der Frankfurter Buchmesse
Leniency Convergence in the EU
The FTC's Chairman on the Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws
September 24, 2009
Branding Individual Corn Flakes
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Microsoft-EU Commission Interoperability Settlement: Some Critical Comments
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Cartels: Their Duration and the Difficult Task of Breaking Them Up
Monday, October 05, 2009
Commitments in EU Competition Law
Google-Books: Tagung in Berlin
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
How will journalism "survive" the Internet age?
Community patent underway?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
AAI: RPM should remain a "hardcore restriction"
The US Goverment's position on Bilski
The Court of First Instance on the distinctive character of a mark
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Neelie Kroes on issues round EU state aid control system
Friday, September 25, 2009
Google Book Settlement:Amendment Ahead
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Advocate General on AdWords and Trademarks
Monday, September 21, 2009
Salame Felino and the European Court of Justice
Friday, September 18, 2009
Defining "noncommercial" uses in copyright
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Google Book Settlement: Competition and Commerce in Digital Books
Monday, September 14, 2009
Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung geistigen Eigentums und dessen Schutzes mit Fokus auf den Mittelstand
SMEs and IP in Switzerland
Spanish Copyright Collecting Society Fined for Abuse of Dominant Position
Pressefusionskontrolle: Anwendung der Abwägungsklausel
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Europeana and Copyright: A Common Solution for Europe's Digital Library?
"However, the substantial progress made with Europeana also brings to the surface the challenges and problems linked to the digitisation process. At the moment, Europeana includes mainly digitised books which are in the public domain and are thus no longer protected by copyright law (which extends to 70 years after the death of the author).
For the moment, Europeana includes, for legal reasons, neither out-of print works (some 90% of the books in Europe's national libraries), nor orphan works (estimated at 10 – 20% of in-copyright collections) which are still in copyright but where the author cannot be identified.
Europeana also shows that licensing of copyright-protected material in Europe still takes place under a very fragmented legal framework. Earlier this year a French aggregator had to withdraw photographs from Europeana, since it only had the right to disseminate the material on French territory".
A public consultation on these very controversial topics has been launched.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Mario Monti on International Competition/Antitrust Convergence and Enforcement in Troubled Times
F. M. Scherer on Patent Policy: Some Recommendations for Competition Authorities
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
EC 2008 Report on Competition Policy Released
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Patent Law and Standards Setting
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Vertical Restraints in the EU: Future Policy Framework under Discussion
Friday, July 24, 2009
EU competition policy for the motor vehicle sector
Public views on copyright policy
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
European Court of Justice on "temporary and transient reproductions"
Friday, June 26, 2009
IP and competition law
"The European Microsoft judgment has therefore left unclear when a dominant firm with IP rights must share them with rivals. Following the judgment, the answer in Europe appears to be: by no means as exceptionally as previously thought. In some ways it is regrettable that Microsoft did not appeal to the European Court of Justice, which might usefully have clarified if not tightened the law".
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On essential facilities and refusals to deal
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Michael Geist has some "visions" for Canada's Copyright Law
Ringtones as Public Performances?
Competition and the Need to Boost the Economy
Monday, June 22, 2009
European Court of Justice on Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1/2003
"(...) a literal interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 leads to the conclusion that the option for the Commission, acting on its own initiative, to submit written observations to courts of the Member States is subject to the sole condition that the coherent application of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC so requires. That condition may be fulfilled even if the proceedings concerned do not pertain to issues relating to the application of Article 81 or Article 82 of the Treaty"
...
In proceedings relating to the penalties in respect of anti‑competitive practices provided for in Article 83(2)(a) EC, the decision that the court seised must give is capable of impairing the effectiveness of those penalties and therefore might compromise the coherent application of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC.
In the circumstances of the action in the main proceedings, it is quite clear that the outcome of the dispute relating to the tax deductibility of part of a fine imposed by the Commission is capable of impairing the effectiveness of the penalty imposed by the Community competition authority. The effectiveness of the Commission’s decision by which it imposed a fine on a company might be significantly reduced if the company concerned, or at least a company linked to that company, were allowed to deduct fully or in part the amount of that fine from the amount of its taxable profits, since such a possibility would have the effect of offsetting the burden of that fine with a reduction of the tax burden.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the Commission to submit on its own initiative written observations to a national court of a Member State in proceedings relating to the deductibility from taxable profits of the amount of a fine or a part thereof imposed by the Commission for infringement of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC".
File sharing and incentives to produce entertainment: how do they affect each other?
Dynamic competition and merger control
OECD on (more) innovation in troubled times
Sunday, June 21, 2009
On the economic and legal analysis of systems
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Google - University of Michigan
Monday, June 15, 2009
Microsoft and the browser choice
Friday, June 12, 2009
Universities and copyright law in Italy: The point of view of a collecting society
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur internet
LG Frankfurt am Main: Elektronische Leseplätze in Bibliotheken (§ 52b UrhG)
Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen):
"Vorstellbare tatsächlich effektive Kontrollen, die zuvor eine detaillierte Darlegung und Prüfung des Zwecks der Nutzung voraussetzen würden, erweisen sich erkennbar als unverhältnismäßig
und stehen der Intention der Regelung des § 52b UrhG entgegen. Die intendierte Nutzungspraxis würde auf diesem Wege vollständig ausgehöhlt".
"Nach Auffassung der Kammer wird die Anwendung des § 52b UrhG nicht bereits durch das
Vorliegen eines Vertragsangebots ausgeschlossen, wie dies die Antragstellerin
meint"
"Die Kammer verkennt nicht, dass durch die
vorstehende Auslegung den öffentlichen Bibliotheken eine sehr komfortabel
ausgestaltete Verhandlungsposition im Rahmen von Verhandlungen mit Verlagen
zugesprochen wird. Dies gebietet jedoch kein abweichendes Auslegungsergebnis,
insbesondere liegt kein Verstoß gegen den sog. Drei-Stufen-Test vor. Der Verlag
wird nicht unangemessen benachteiligt, insbesondere sind auch die öffentlichen
Bibliotheken im vorliegenden Fall gehalten, eine entsprechende Vergütung für die
gesetzliche Lizenz zu erstatten. Diese wird über die VG-Wort ausgehandelt und abgerechnet.
Auch stellt sich der hier in Streit stehende Eingriff im Verhältnis zu den
bereits seit Jahrzehnten geltenden Eingriffen gemäß § 53 Abs. 2 UrhG nicht als wesentlich
intensiver dar. Insbesondere die von Antragstellerseite aufgeführten Umsatzeinbußen
und Beeinträchtigungen des Verlagsangebots liegen nicht nahe und
waren bereits Gegenstand intensiver Diskussionen, welche das
Gesetzgebungsverfahren begleitet haben"
"Auch die beanstandete Digitalisierung der Werke ist von § 52b UrhG gedeckt.
Nach überwiegender Auffassung in der Literatur begründet § 52b UrhG eine Annex-
Berechtigung zur Vervielfältigung des Werkes. Um die Zugänglichmachung zu
ermöglichen, müssen die privilegierten Einrichtungen in aller Regel zunächst jedoch
ein dazu erforderliches digitales Vervielfältigungsstück herstellen. Ansonsten liefe die
fragliche Bestimmung weitgehend leer".
"Die Antragstellerin kann von der
Antragsgegnerin gem. § 97 I UrhG verlangen, es Nutzern nicht zu ermöglichen,
digitale Versionen der Werke, die im Verlag der Antragstellerin veröffentlicht sind, an
elektronischen Arbeitsplätzen auf USB-Sticks oder andere Träger für digitalisierte
Werke zu vervielfältigen bzw. diese Vervielfältigungen aus den Räumen der
Bibliothek mitzunehmen. Dagegen war das gegen die Möglichkeit eines Ausdrucks
der digitalisierten Werke gerichtete Unterlassungsbegehren zurückzuweisen".
"Nach dem Willen des Gesetzgebers soll der geschaffene § 52b UrhG eine Nutzung
ermöglichen, die der analogen Nutzung vergleichbar ist (BT-DS 16/1828, S. 26). Da
das Angebot hier im Wesentlichen auf wissenschaftliche Arbeit mit Texten gerichtet
ist, umfasst dies auch die Möglichkeit eines Ausdrucks. Eine sinnvolle Arbeit mit
längeren Texten setzt regelmäßig die Möglichkeit voraus, in etwaigen Kopien
zentrale Passagen des Textes zu markieren und diese in Auszügen auch aus der
Bibliothek zum weitergehenden Studium an anderen Ort mitzunehmen. Ließe das
Gesetz eine derartige Möglichkeit nicht zu, wäre das geschaffene Angebot einem
analogen Angebot nicht vergleichbar, sondern beschränkte sich wohl für die
überwiegende Anzahl der wissenschaftlichen Nutzer im Wesentlichen auf die
Möglichkeit einer Überprüfung von Zitaten....Das Gesetz
rechtfertigt in jedem Falle keine vollständige Kopie des Werkes, sondern lediglich
eine teilweise Ablichtung einzelner Passagen. Vor diesem Hintergrund erweisen sich
die besorgten Unterschiede nicht als derart intensiv. Sie sind vielmehr Folge und
auch Zweck der geschaffenen Neuregelung, welche einer Förderung der
Medienkompetenz der Bevölkerung dienen soll....Nach
dem eindeutigen Wortlaut des § 52b UrhG muss sich das Angebot auf eine Nutzung
in den Räumen der Bibliothek beschränken. Ließe man die Speicherung und
Mitnahme der Digitalisate selbst zu, würde – anders als bei der Mitnahme eines
Ausdrucks – eine Nutzung des geschaffenen Angebots auch außerhalb der Räumlichkeiten der Bibliothek ermöglicht. Dies ist durch die geschaffene Regelung
nicht mehr gedeckt".
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
European Court of Justice on concerted practices
Resale price maintenance sanctioned in Switzerland
VG Wort, Google Settlement und das Aktionsbündnis "Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft".
Bemerkenswert ist auch die dabei angekündigte Absicht des Aktionsbündnisses, zu versuchen, "mit Google zu einer Einigung zu kommen, nach der die freie Anzeige in Google Books erlaubt wird, eventuell auch mit Werbung, aber nur unter der Voraussetzung, dass dadurch keine neuen kommerziellen Verwertungsmodelle entstehen"
Monday, June 08, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Microsoft: Competition Investigation in Russia
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Competition Advocacy and Recession/2
Study on the empirical impact of DRM
Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Korean Intel Decision: Summary of Translation
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Transport public terrestre de voyageurs en France
Google -Settlement und digitale Nutzungen von vergriffenen Werken
- zieht die Vergütungsansprüche für die bis zum 5. Mai 2009 von Google digitalisierten Werke ein;
- zieht aber die in Deutschland erschienenen Werke aus dem Digitalisierungsprogramm von Google zurück;
- kann digitale Nutzungen von vergriffenen Werken lizenzieren, wenn die Rechteinhaber damit einverstanden sind (Google aber auch Träger von deutschen und europäischen Digitalisierungsprojekten kämen als Lizenznehmer in Betracht);
- kann digitale Vervielfältigungen zum ausschließlichen Zweck der Anzeige von bibliographischen Daten im Internet lizenzieren.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Intel: Abuse of Dominant Position
See also a working paper prepared by the AAI comparing the European Intel Case with the U.S. Microsoft Cases.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Competition Advocacy and Recession
Thursday, April 30, 2009
UK Merger Guidelines
Thursday, April 23, 2009
ITIF meeting on "Copyright, Content and Class Action Lawsuits: A Debate on the Google Book Search Settlement"
Here the digital video of the debate.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
IP at the WTO
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
COMPETITION POLICY IN TIMES OF GLOBAL CRISIS
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
OFT on the "Failing Firm" Defence in Merger Cases
France: exclusivité Orange/Apple contestée par le Conseil de la Concurrence
Des mesures conservatoires ont été prononcées dans l'attente de sa décision au fond.
Monday, January 05, 2009
2007 Patent Applications in the US
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
On the Economics of IP Rights
Monday, December 15, 2008
Competition Policy in "Interesting Times"
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Neelie Kroes on Collective Redress
Monday, December 08, 2008
Merger Policy Amid Financial Crises/2
Competition Policy in a Global Perspective
Multilateral Register for Geographical Indications on Wines and Spirits?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Merger Policy Amid Financial Crises
Monday, November 03, 2008
Interdiction de vente sur Internet des produits cosmétiques et d’hygiène corporelle sanctionnée
"New" Eligibility Criteria for Software Patents in the U.S.?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act turning ten
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Deutscher Bundesrat: Kann ein starker Schutz geistigen Eigentums gleichzeitig bildungs- und wissenschaftsfreundlich sein?
Friday, August 08, 2008
Remote Storage Video Recorder System and US Copyright Law
The appeals court has considered a bundle of interesting questions, that we will briefly examine in turn.
First of all, the storage system at issue involves the the buffering of data, and the relevant question is whether this process could amount to an infringement of the reproduction right of the content providers (broadcast and cable channels) . In practical terms, the single stream of data gathered from the content providers is split into two: whereas the first is routed immediately to customers, the second "flows into a device called the Broadband Media Router (“BMR”) which buffers the
data stream, reformats it, and sends it to the “Arroyo Server,”, id at 7. This latter consists mainly of two data buffers and a number of high-capacity hard disks. After having moved the stream of data to the first buffer (the "primary ingest buffer"), the server automatically inquires as to whether any customers want to record any of that programming. Only in case the customer requests a particular program, "the data for that program move from the primary buffer into a secondary buffer, and then onto a portion of one of the hard disks allocated to that customer". In this respect, content is taken from the stream of programming and stored into the BMR and the first buffer independently from actual customer requests.
In order to constitute a copy as defined in US copyright law, the Second Circuit asserts that two conditions should be met: 1) the work should be embodied in a medium, in the sense that it could then be perceived, reproduced, etc., from that medium (briefly, copied from that medium); 2) the work must must remain thus embodied “for a period of more than transitory duration”.
Therefore, the storage of content per se results in “copying” only if it is not transitory. The appeals court thus runs counter the Copyright Office’s 2001 DMCA Report, according to which a word is “fixed” in a given medium if the work is capable of
being copied from that medium for any amount of time, i.e. also transitory. Works in the case at issue are “embodied” both in the BMR buffer and the primary ingest buffer (i.e. they can be copied, respectively, from the BRM buffer to other components of the RS-DVR system and from the primary ingest buffer onto the Arroyo hard disks), but are not “fixed” because
- “no bit of data remains in any buffer for more than a fleeting 1.2 seconds” and
- “each bit of data here is rapidly and automatically overwritten as soon as it is processed”.
-
Secondly, as regards the playback copy made on the hard disks of Cablevision’s Arroyo Server pursuant to a customer request, the question arises whether it is Cablevision who made that copy, and in that case there would be a direct infringement of copyright. According to the appeals court the decisive element should be the “volitional conduct that causes the copy to be made”. Since copies are made automatically upon the customer’s command, a RS-DVR user is similarly situated to a VCR user or to a customer using a photocopier. Cablevision would resemble a “a store proprietor who charges customers to use a photocopier on his premises, and it seems incorrect to say, without more, that such a proprietor “makes” any copies when his machines are actually operated by his customers”. Besides, Cablevision’s control over the content recorded by these customers is limited to the channels of programming available to a customer and not to the programs themselves (as it would be the case in the VOD context).
The final issue attains to the legal nature of the RS-DVR playback to a particular customer, in particular whether it should be considered as the transmission of a performance to the public and therefore an infringement of the content providers’ exclusive public performance rights. According to the Second Circuit, because the RS-DVR system only makes transmissions to one customer using a copy made by that customer, the “universe of people” capable of receiving a RS-DVR transmission is limited to that single customer. As the Court states,“the use of a unique copy may limit the potential audience of a transmission and is therefore relevant to whether that transmission is made to the public”, id. at 41.
See R.Kazemi,Online-TV-Recorder - nun auch in den USA vor dem Aus?,MMR 2007,5, VIII for some German court decisions on the remote recording of TV-programs and the recent WIZZGO decision by the Parisian Tribunal de Grande Instance.
-
Panel, Programme here , Video here .
-
S. Waller, here .
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
M. Risch, here .
-
FTC Hearings, Video here .
-
On 24 March 2004 the European Commission fined Microsoft for abuse of dominant position (H/T Lewis Crofts). 18 years (age of maturity) l...
-
Motherboard.vice.com, here .