Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
S, Vishnu
- Software Interoperability and Competition Law
Abstract Views :99 |
Authors
Vishnu S
1
Affiliations
1 Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, University of Kerala, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 037, Kerala, IN
1 Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, University of Kerala, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 037, Kerala, IN
Source
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 25, No 6 (2020), Pagination: 180-185Abstract
Interoperability is of prominent role in the software industry, since the value of a software product largely depends on the extent to which it can be used together with systems that consumers already have. Interoperability in the computer industry is a big deal and the lack of interoperability even more so. Recently interoperability has materialized as a crucial policy and legal consideration in cases concerning competition laws in the software sector. In this article, author analyses the role of competition law in enforcing software interoperability from the intellectual property perspective focusing on the abuse of dominant position.Full Text
- Pervasive Effect of Competition Law on Copyright Societies in India
Abstract Views :66 |
PDF Views:67
Authors
Vishnu S
1
Affiliations
1 Government Law College, University of Kerala, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram — 695 037, Kerala, India., IN
1 Government Law College, University of Kerala, Kunnukuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram — 695 037, Kerala, India., IN
Source
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol 28, No 2 (2023), Pagination: 87-93Abstract
Copyright societies play a vital role in the copyright system. They enable markets to function for the use of copyright works in situations where the copyright holder cannot contract directly with the user. This is done by way of simplifying the negotiation process in managing the rights oftheir members and acting asa single contact point for licensees. Generally, it is admitted that copyright societies act in the interest of both rights owners and end users. There is, in practice for operational reasons, a single society per sector in India. That means thatboth users and authors only haveone partner with whom they must deal. They have no choice and the society occupies a de facto monopoly, and potential abuses may result from their double monopoly situation. It is therefore byno means surprising to see that collective management has attracted a lot of attention from the side of the competition authorities. It has also become increasingly clear that the inherent monopoly of copyright society raises serious concerns for the competition authorities.Keywords
Copyright Societies, Abuse of Dominance, Monopoly, Copyright Licensing, Sound Recordings, Cinematographic Film.Full Text
References
- Proviso to Section 33 (1), The Copyright Act, 1957.
- Proviso to Section 33 (3), The Copyright Act, 1957.
- Cotter T F, The procompetitive interest in Intellectual Property Law, William & Mary LawReview, 48 (2006) 483.
- Vishnu S, Software Interoperability and Competition Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 25 (2020) 180-185.
- Twentieth Century Music Corp. vAiken, US Supreme Court, 422 U.S. 151.
- MP MehrotravJet Airways (India) Limited and Kingfisher Airlines Limited, Case No: Misc. 1/2010 (4/2009), CCI decided on 9 January 2012.
- Establishments Consten SA &Grunding – Verkaufs – GmbH vCommission, (1966) ECR/1966 CMLR 418.
- Section 3(5), The Competition Act, 2002.
- Relevant marketmeans the market which may be determined by the commission with reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to both the markets;
- ShamsherKataria vHonda Seil Cars India Limited, 2014 CompLR 1 (CCI).
- Section 32, The Competition Act, 2002; Sh. DhanrajPillai v M/s Hockey India, 2013 CompLR 543 (CCI).
- M/s Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd v Competition Commission of India, CRL.M.C 4363/2018 & CRL.M.C. 5371/2018, Delhi High Court (Decided on 29 March 2019).
- Google Inc. & Ors. vCompetition Commission of India & Ors., 2015 (150) DRJ 192.
- FICCI – Multiplex Association of India vUnited Producers/Distributors Forum, 2011 CompLR 79 (CCI).
- Mrs.ManjuTharad, Proprietors and M/s Manoranjan Films, Kolkata vEastern India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA), Kolkata and The Censor Board of Film Certification, Kolkata, (2012) 114 SCL 20 (CCI).
- MausegattvHauteautorite, C-13/60.
- Exclusive Motors Pvt. Limited vAutomobile Lamborghini SPA, 62, [2014] 121 CLA 230 (CAT).
- Google Inc. & Ors. vCompetition Commission of India &Ors., 2015 (150) DRJ 192, Uniglobe Mod Travels Pvt. Limited vTra
- vel Agents Federation of India, 2011 CompLR 79 (CCI).
- Sodhi Transport Co. vState of UP, AIR 1986 SC 1099.
- Warrier V S, Public Interest Issues in Copyright, TheLex-Warrier: Online Law Journal, 3 (2018) 97-100.
- Indian Performing Rights Society vEastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, (1977) 2 SCC 820.
- Sections 2(f), 13(1)(b), 14 and 16.
- Entertainment Network (India) Limited vSuper Cassette Industries Ltd. 2008 (4) ALD 47 (SC).
- United States v Microsoft, 38 1998 WL 614485.
- Microfibres Inc. v Giridhar& Co., (2009) 40 PTC 519(Delhi).
- Twentieth Century Music Corp. v Aiken, 422 US 151, 156 (1975).
- Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v Santhosh VG, MIPR 2009 (2) 175.
- Reliance Big Entertainment Limited v Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce, Case No. 25/2010.
- Belaire Owners’ Association v DLF Limited Haryana Urban Development Authority Department of Town and Country Planning, State of Haryana, [2011] 104 CLA 398 (CCI).
- HT Media Limited v Super Cassettes Industries Limited, 2014 CompLR 129 (CCI).
- Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- GHCL Limited vCoal India Limited (CIL), [2015] 131 SCL 408 (CCI), CIL was held to be in the natural monopoly in the relevant market for the production and supply of non-cooking coal tothermal power producers including captive power plants in India. The dominant position of CIL was acquired as a result of the policy of the Government of India by creating a public sector undertaking in the name of CIL and vesting the ownership of the private mines in it. Thus, CIL and its subsidiaries faced no competitive pressure in the market and there was no challenge at the horizontal level against the market power of the Opposite Parties.
- Sharad Kumar Jhunjunwalav Union of India, 2015 CompLR 859 (CCI), it was noted that Ministry of Railways through the Railway Board administered Indian Railways, which owns and operates India’s rail network. The market is solely created by the passenger segment of Indian Railways within the geographic territory of India, thereby placing the Indian Railways in dominant position enabling it to operate independently of competitive forces and affect its consumers and relevant market in its favour. In the light of the agreement entered between Indian Railways and IRCTC, it was held that, the Ministry of Railways and IRCTC formed a group for the purpose of the Act and also dominant in the relevant market.
- Shivam Enterprises vKiratpur Sahib Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Limited, 2015 CompLR 232 (CCI), it was noted that, Kiratpur Sahib Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Limited was the only one enterprise that operated withinthe Kiratpur region and there was no other competitors. The consumers were totally dependent on the Society for the transportation of goods from Kiratpur area as other non-members of truck owners were not allowed to operate within the area thereby enabling society to operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market and affects its competitors in its favour. Accordingly, Kiratpur Sahib Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Limited was held to be dominant in the relevant market.
- NV NederlandscheBanden-Industrie Michelin v Commission, [1983] ECR 3461.
- Jones A & Sufrin B,EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. (Oxford University Press), 2016.
- M/s Fast Way Transmission Pvt. Ltd. & Others vKansan News Pvt. Ltd. and CCI through its Secretary, [2014] 122 CLA 31 (CAT).
- Magill TV Guide – British Telecommunications, Joined cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P.
- Sh. Surinder Singh Barmi vBoard for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), [2013] 118 SCL 226 (CCI).
- Cross J T & Yu P K, Competition Law and copyright misuse, Drake Law Review, 56 (2007) 427.