Interface Between Copyright And Competition Law

Urooj Fatema, Ph.D. Research Scholar, West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. Kolkata. West Bengal, India

Dr. Syed Imran Hussain, Research Scholar, Department of Geography. Jamia Millia Islamia. New Delhi, India

ABSTRACT

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) grant the possessor a transient right to prohibit others from utilizing such IPRs. The exclusivity period enables the IPR holder to capitalize on the value attached to the IPR and is viewed as compensation for the inventor's labour in developing the IPR. As a result, the IPR effectively guarantees the holder a temporary monopoly right. By contrast, competition law is focused on prohibiting anti-competitive behaviour, whether it is the product of coordinated or unilateral activity. The choice of the IPR holder is a commercial one, and it will depend on whether doing so will result in a net surplus over the option of using the IPR for its own economic gain. It is entirely conceivable that the owner of the IPR will decide to concentrate on product creation and contract out the manufacture to other businesses through licensing. The need to ensure that not only the IPR is not subject to abuse (whether in the form of excessive pricing, anti-competitive tying, refusal to license, etc.), but also to ensure that the antitrust regime is not overbearing and maintains the incentives for potential inventors to innovate and create intellectual property, is inherent in this interface between IPRs and competition law. After all, that fuels economic expansion and, consequently, a knowledge-based economy.

This paper discusses about the laws of copyright and competition that are destined to converge for increased commerce, deeper economic links, and greater market play in instances when the owner attempts to leverage the rights into a more powerful competitive position. A potent tool in the fight against anti- competitive misuse of copyright power is the prohibition against anti-trade actions. A stronger legislative structure is necessary to strike a balance between the market as a whole and the different market actors because it is impossible to expect the two streams of law to remain in completely watertight compartments. However, both are related to one another because their ultimate goal is to satisfy the needs of the maximum number of customers in the market.