Exclusion Versus Control: The Competition Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Exclusion Versus Control: The Competition Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights
Issue: Volume 28 no 1
Author(s): Robert Mysicka
Abstract:
In an ideal world, competition law and intellectual property rights (IPRs) operate symbiotically—promoting a competitive atmosphere in the market for goods, services, and ideas, while at the same time protecting the exclusive rights that stimulate intellectual and entrepreneurial investment. The current economic and legal atmosphere, however, has resulted in serious tensions, if not outright clashes, between the goals of competition law and IPRs, underscoring the distinct modi operandi of these contrasting regimes. From a Canadian perspective, this article explores the legal and policy-related problems that arise when IPRs are exercised in abusive or anti-competitive ways. It concludes that a fair and efficient IPR system, though based on an exclusionary model, must not give rights-holders free reign to control products, processes, or markets through the manipulation of IPRs.
