Standardization under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws
Show Less

Standardization under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws

The Rise and Limits of Self-Regulation

  • New Horizons in Competition Law and Economics series

Björn Lundqvist

Standardization under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws is a comprehensive and detailed legal analysis of standard-setting procedure and the regulation of standard essential patents. It deals with the competition law aspects of competitors' collaboration to create technical standards, as well as the contentious antitrust issues regarding access to standards and standard essential patents.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details

Chapter 6: Unilateral conduct under standards

Björn Lundqvist

Extract

One of the first 'patent ambush' incidents that came to the authorities' attention with reference to the 'new economy' seems to have been In re Dell. The FTC action against Dell Computers arose out of Dell's membership of the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA), an SSO comprising computer hardware and software manufacturers. Dell, together with the other members of the SSO, approved a new technology standard for computers (VL-Bus), certifying that the standard did not infringe any of its intellectual property rights. The bus carries information between the computer's central processing unit and the computer's peripheral devices such as a hard-disk drive, a video-display terminal, or a modem. Once the new standard was successfully incorporated and implemented, Dell informed certain VESA members that, by manufacturing computers under the standard, they violated certain patent rights held by Dell. Hence, they needed to enter into a licence agreement with Dell or face the risk of an injunction from the courts. The FTC alleged that Dell's practices constituted unfair competition in violation of Sec. 5 of the FTC Act. Dell entered into a consent order, agreeing not to enforce its patent rights against the standard. In the following Re Union Oil Company of California('Unocal'), the FTC alleged that in communications with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and private parties, Unocal failed to disclose that it held pending patent applications that could be relevant to the emission standards and requirements it was promoting for adoption.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.