Are Article 82 EC and Intellectual Property Interoperable? The State of the Law Pending the Judgment in Microsoft v. Commission
Maurits Dolmans, Paul-John Loewenthal, Robert O’Donoghue, Apr 19, 2007
The objectives of intellectual property rights (IPR) and competition law are essentially the same: both promote innovation to the benefit of consumers. IPRs are, however blunt instruments that strike the right balance in general, but in exceptional individual situations may not achieve (and may sometimes even obstruct) the innovation policy goal. Competition law is a useful tool to redress the balance in these situations, and the European Commission and EC courts have recognized that in exceptional cases the exercise of IPRs may infringe competition law. This article examines the extent to which Article 82 EC restricts the use of IPRs, pending the judgment of the CFI in Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission.
Featured News
Baker McKenzie Welcomes Back Former DOJ Antitrust Official
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
EU Flags Potential Antitrust Breach by Meta Over WhatsApp AI Restrictions
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
US Drops Antitrust Case Against German Fragrance Maker Symrise
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
Autodesk Sues Google Over Use of ‘Flow’ Trademark in AI Software Dispute
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
Indiana Reaches $6.25 Million Settlement in EpiPen Price-Fixing Case
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber