Anti-competitive Practices. 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, “anti-competitive practices” refer to:
Anti-competitive Practices. 2.1 The Licensee shall not alone or together with others, engage in or continue or knowingly acquiesce in any anti-competitive practices and, in particular, the Licensee shall:
Anti-competitive Practices. 1. The following practices of undertakings are incompatible with the proper functioning of this Agreement in so far as they may affect trade between the Parties:
Anti-competitive Practices in connection with any Claim or other Insured Event made for any actual or alleged violation of any law, whether statutory, regulatory or common law, with respect to any of the following activities: anti-trust, business competition, unfair trade practices or tortious interference in another’s business or contractual relationships.
Anti-competitive Practices. The Company is subject to complex laws (known as “antitrust laws”) designed to preserve competition among enterprises and to protect consumers from unfair business arrangements and practices. You should avoid discussion of competitively sensitive topics, such as prices, pricing policies, costs and marketing strategies (except as reasonably required by your job duties).
Anti-competitive Practices. The Parties shall take all necessary measures in accordance with their respective laws and regulations in order to prevent and restrict anti-competitive practices that affect trade between the Parties. Particular attention shall be given to the following practices which are incompatible with the proper operation of this Agreement: all agreements betweenenterprises, decisions by associations of enterprises and concerted practices between enterprises which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition; abuse by one or more enterprises of a dominant position; and unfair competition. The issues concerning state monopolies and enterprises entrusted with special or exclusive rights shall not be subject of this Chapter.
Anti-competitive Practices. Patent law and competition law have throughout the decades swirled around each other like the double helix of the DNA. Their inter-relationship has changed because the two institutions have, over the years, been redefined independently. The theoretical development of the two blocks of law is a discourse of American dominance. As accounted for earlier261 patent theory has gone from regarding patents as a reward for creative effort to a incentive to invest. The theories concerning 258 Talking points on Cipro patent dispute by Xxxxx Xxxx found at xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/xx/xxxxxx/xx/xxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxx (last visited 2004-06-30). 259 United States Code Annotated Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Part IV— Jurisdiction and Venue Chapter 91—United States Court of Federal Claims. § 1498. Patent and copyright cases. 260 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Press Release, October 24, 2001 found at xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/xx/xxxxxx/xx/xxxxx/xxxx00000000.xxx (last visited 2004-06-30). 261 See Chapter 4 above. competition, or antitrust, have gone through several phases. The first theoretical tools that were not just based on assumptions emerged after the Second World War with the so-called “Harvard School”.262 The Harvard School was more occupied with how a market was structured than the behaviour of the market players. Market shares were seen as strong indicators of foul play. As a reaction toward the Harvard School of analysis emerged another line of theory in the early seventies, “The Chicago School”263. The Chicago School argued that many of the Harvard School assumptions were wrong. Market dominance was many times not a structural problem but the effect of competitive behaviour among the market players. Both these schools of theory have implications for the strength of patent rights. As for the Harvard era, patents being nation wide, it is not hard to draw the conclusion that it is the patent right which creates the dominant position. It might also be that a large market player has built up an equally large patent portfolio. The position of the patent holder is weakened even more if the Reward Theory of the time is interpreted so that the right holder might be considered to have been rewarded too much. Most of the compulsory patent licensing under Antitrust judgements in the USA were given when the Harvard School of Antitrust and the Reward Theory dominated the analytical scene.264 Chicago economists might have done wonders for competition law but their theor...
Anti-competitive Practices. 1. Where a Party maintains or establishes a major supplier or dominant operator to provide public telecommunications networks and services, and it competes, directly or through an affiliate, in the supply of enhanced or value-added services or other goods or services related to telecommunications, the Party shall ensure that the major supplier or dominant operator does not use its position to engage in anti-competitive practices in those markets, either directly or through dealings with its affiliates, in a manner that adversely affects a person of the other Party.
Anti-competitive Practices. 1. The Parties shall take all necessary measures in accordance with their respective laws and regulations in order to prevent and restrict anti-competitive practices that affect trade between the Parties. Particular attention shall be given to the following practices which are incompatible with the proper operation of this Agreement:
Anti-competitive Practices. 1. Where a Party maintains or establishes a monopoly, principal supplier or dominant operator to provide public telecommunications networks and services, and it competes, directly or through an affiliate, in the supply of enhanced or value-added services or other goods or services related to telecommunications, the Party shall ensure that the monopoly, principal supplier or dominant operator does not use its position to engage in anti-competitive practices in those markets, either directly or through dealings with its affiliates, in a manner that adversely affects a person of another Party. Such practices may include cross-subsidization, predatory conduct and discriminatory access to public telecommunications networks and services.
