Comparative Study On The Abuse Of IP Rights Under Anti-monopoly Regulations In China And Australia

With the greater focus on the knowledge economy both in China and in the west over the past century,economic competition is a strong clue as to where true power lies,knowledge.Knowledge can be wielded as a force for good in the world,a force for making profits,and as an economic weapon.In any case,the protection of knowledge is crucial to those nations or individuals seeking power and influence in global markets.The protection of intellectual property rights focuses on protecting an inventor's interests which therefore encourages innovation.Though anti-monopoly laws exist in most nations,the protection of IP rights in such jurisdictions is not uniformly enforced.Lack of enforcement naturally leads to potential monopoly situations.This is the antithesis of both competition laws and IP laws.With this in mind,we can now see a delicate balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the encouragement of market competition.Too much IP protection means not enough competition due to legal monopolies driving out competitors.Not enough IP protection removes the incentives for innovation and markets stagnate.This proposition forms a central tenant of this paper.Both IP rights and competition seek the very same outcome,that is welfare for the people.Yet the balance between the two is difficult to manage.IP rights laws are simply one of a range of available a tools under competition policy that help to reach a reasonable balance which then achieves the overall aims of a given nations competition policy,and in turn,their economic policy.As an Australian exchange student in China,this research paper aims to compare the IP abuse laws that exist under competition regulations in both China and Australia.The comparison is intended to clarify areas for improvement that each of the two nations can provide to one another.Part one provides the foundations of intellectual property rights abuse as it relates to competition policy.The features of IP rights are then defined along with an outline of the typical protection measures and common types of abuse that are experienced in the jurisdictions of China,Australia,as well as globally.Crucially,the counter-intuitive interplay between competition and innovation is explored through the pivotal analogy that a legal monopoly does not equate to an economic monopoly.Part two looks at China's regulation and enforcement of IP rights abuse under the anti-monopoly law.At first,the origins of the present system are drawn upon before the relevance of regulations and the practicality of those modern laws are examined to discover whether or not they perform their duty.By and large these regulations are substandard in the legal sense,yet the very same laws operate in an environment where overarching economic goals may discount their need for effect by world standards.That is to say that the end result to society is where the true benefits should be measured.Part three follows the same structure as part two and focuses on Australia and the equivalent legislation and enforcement measures in place to deal with IP rights abuse.Australia is under the common law system and deals with a population a fraction of the size of China.This has implications for the modern regulations when compared to China' s legal and demographic situation.Nevertheless,valuable comparisons may be drawn to the Chinese legal system's approach to IP abuse under anti-monopoly law.Part four compares the systems of IP rights abuse under the respective competition regulations in each China and Australia.Implications of present regulations are the basis for comparison.This comparison draws both negative and positive traits that each of the nations share.Part five suggests mutually exchangeable areas for improvement to IP rights abuse regulations in both China and Australia.