Compulsory licensing: the compromise of interests (Retracted)
https://doi.org/10.17073/2072-1633-2015-4-71-76
Abstract
In a situation where the patent holder steadfastly refuses to license his invention, despite the need for its use in certain circumstances, the state stands to protect the public interest against the interests of the copyright holder. Compulsory licensing of technology is a common practice and is present in different forms in the US and the EU law. In some cases, the public interest is recognized as more important than the private interest of the patent holder, who totally bans to use his intellectual property The possibility of a compulsory license without the permission of the patent holder is fixed in Art. 1239 of the RF Civil Code. Article 1362 of the Civil Code defines the conditions of a compulsory license for industrial property. The Berne Convention on Copyright mentions the feasibility to introduce compulsory licensing in favor of broadcasting organizations . The TRIPS Agreement defines the conditions that must be met when issuing compulsory patent license. An analysis of foreign sources shows that compulsory licensing is one of the most effective mechanisms for reaching a compromise between interests of the author and society.
Ban concept of intellectual property is detrimental to business, like any other monopoly. On the other hand, the authors of intellectual property should be adequately rewarded for their creative work. The article confirmed the feasibility of shifting the balance of interests of the right holder to society, both in the field of industrial property and copyright.
About the Author
V. N. Shtennikov
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate Technical Sciences, Associate Professor,
Ekaterinburg
References
1. Androshchuk G.A. Compulsory licensing of medicines: problems and solutions. Patenty i litsenzii. Intellektual’nye prava. 2014. No. 11. Pp. 59–67. (In Russ).
2. Romashev D.A. Limitation of exclusive rights to the invention. Patenty i litsenzii. Intellektual’nye prava. 2006. No. 2. Pp. 23–31. (In Russ).
3. Tyukhmat’ev V.M. Institutional framework of intellectual property: the advantages and disadvantages. Terra Economicus. 2012. V. 10. No. 4–3. Pp. 38–40. (In Russ).
4. Siew Kuan Ng E. Patent trolling: innovation and risk. E.I.P.R. 2009. V. 31. No.12. Pp. 593–608.
5. Kommentarii k GK RF [Commentary to the Civil Code]. pod red. Doctor of Law, S.A. Stepanova. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow: Prospekt; Ekaterinburg: Institut chastnogo prava, 2009. 1504 p. (In Russ).
6. Nikolaeva E. Prinuditel’naya litsenziya. [Compulsory License]. Available at: http://www.gazeta-yurist.ru/article.php?i=1089 (accessed:….). (In Russ).
7. Copyright news. Managing Intellectual Property. 2014. No. 237
8. Meeus J. de, Strowel A. Climate change and the debate around green technology transfer and patent rules: history, prospect and unresolved issues. Available at: httpV/vvww.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/intprope rty/wipoJournal/
9. wipoJournal_3 _2.pdf (accessed: 01.02.2015).
10. Derclaye E. The role of copyright in the protection of the environment and the fight against climate change: is the current copyright system adequate? Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm (accessed: 01.02.2015).
11. Bennett S. Wearable healthcare technology. Intellectual Property Magazine. 2014. July/August. Pp. 40–42.
12. Kondrin A. Reshenie problemy «absolyutnoi nesovmestimosti avtorskogo prava i internet» [Solving the problem of «absolute incompatibility between copyright and the Internet»]. Available at: http://www.rb.ru/community/articles/articles/2010/03/29/132003.html (accessed: 08.12.2015). (In Russ).
13. Hawkins M. New Zealand makes sweeping changes to patent law. New Patent Act to be enacted in 2009. PW. 2008. No. 207. Pp. 13–14.
14. Peets L., Young M. Is the exception becoming the rule? More governements are using IP without consen. Patent World Issues. 2007. No. 195. Pp. 21–24.
15. Siew Kuan Ng E. Patent trolling: innovation and risk. E.I.P.R. 2009. V. 31. No. 12. Pp. 593–608.
16. Jin H. Reality and potentiality: compulsory patent licensing in China from a comparative perspective. E.I.P.R. 2009. V. 31. No. 2. Pp. 93–100.
17. Kleyn M. M. An overview of licensing as a form of exploitation of IP rights in China and Japan. Part II. Les Nouvelles. 2012. V. XLVII. No. 2. Pp. 138–146.
18. Nicholson K., Liu Z. Avoid competition problems in China. MIP. 2008. No. 181. Pp. 54–57.
19. Doi H. Japan’s green technology plan. MIP. 2010. No. 196. P. 126–129.
20. Goddar H. Compulsory licensing – the German and EU perspective. Les Nouvelles. 2012. V. XLVII. No. 1. Pp. 92–93.
21. Lomas M., Ferguson V. Compulsory licensing. Or when is a monopoly not a monopoly? PW. 2008. No. 206. Pp. 22–23.
Review
For citations:
Shtennikov V.N. Compulsory licensing: the compromise of interests (Retracted). Russian Journal of Industrial Economics. 2015;(4):71-76. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17073/2072-1633-2015-4-71-76
Views:
831
Email this article 