Research On The Antitrust Law Significance Of Monopoly Of Intellectual Property

When discussing the characteristics of intellectual property rights,it is common to see such arguments as "intellectual property rights are monopolistic" and "intellectual property rights are legal monopoly rights",which have become a general theory in intellectual property theory.In judicial practice,for example,in the recent case of Ningbo Kotian Magnetic Co.,Ltd.v.Hitachi Metals,Ltd.decided by Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court,the court argued that the defendant was the supplier of the relevant patent license and that it had a 100% market share because of the exclusivity of the patent.The court concluded that the defendant had a dominant position in the market without finding that it had substitute products and substitute technologies.This case reflects the fact that in judicial practice,the vagueness of the concept can lead to errors in its application and the presumption of market dominance from the possession of intellectual property rights.The term monopoly of intellectual property rights originates from the early feudal franchise of intellectual property rights,a system that retained foreign technical personnel,strengthened the country’s national power,and also generated revenue for the state,and protected the development of official enterprises.But this system was not compatible with the development of the capitalist economy,and over time,intellectual property gradually changed from a privilege to a private right.However,the term monopoly of intellectual property rights continues to be used today.The modern connotation of the monopoly of intellectual property is the legal right of exclusivity,which is essentially the same as the right of exclusivity in rem,but the industry has never said that the monopoly of property is stronger,so the term monopoly of intellectual property should also be abandoned.Given the judicial confusion over the use of antitrust law to regulate the monopoly of intellectual property rights,this article explores the relationship between the "monopoly" in the monopoly of intellectual property rights and the "monopoly" in antitrust regulation.While the two are indeed related in the sense that product differentiation caused by intellectual property may contribute to the formation of market power,there is a significant difference between the two.In terms of economics,the exclusivity of intellectual property rights is a border-type exclusion,while the monopoly regulated by antitrust law is a market-type exclusion,and in terms of the legal system,intellectual property rights belong to the domain of private law,while antitrust law belongs to the domain of public law.Confusing the relationship between the two is also not conducive to the function of the legal system.To sum up,in the correct application of the antitrust law to regulate the monopoly of intellectual property rights,it should first be understood that Article 55 of the antitrust law is only a descriptive legal article,which should not be interpreted as an intellectual property rights exclusion clause or exemption clause,and it should be interpreted as follows: when there is a conflict between the intellectual property law and the antitrust law,both the function of the intellectual property law and the legislative purpose of the antitrust law should be respected,and when regulating the violations,it should be analyzed according to the general elements of the illegality of the antitrust law.Secondly,the special characteristics of intellectual property rights should also be fully considered when analyzing the behavior.For example,the principle of reasonableness and the principle of per se illegality are correctly applied in analyzing the monopolistic behavior of intellectual property rights.For example,the principle of reasonableness can be applied to joint research agreements,and the positive impact of the relevant behavior on efficiency and innovation can be considered on a case-by-case basis.In defining the market for intellectual property,while properly analyzing demand substitution,attention should also be paid to barriers to entry,and perhaps to related technology markets and related innovation markets that are specific to intellectual property.The law is brought out through language,and the expressions " intellectual property is a monopoly" and " intellectual property is a legal monopoly" must be abandoned,and when it comes to the monopoly of intellectual property,the antitrust law must be properly applied while taking into account the specificity of intellectual property.In the case of monopolistic acts of intellectual property rights,we should take into full consideration the special characteristics of intellectual property rights and apply the antitrust law to regulate them,to promote the development of intellectual property rights and antitrust law in the right direction.