PEMBATASAN TERHADAP PERSAINGAN UNTUK MEMBENTUK PASAR DALAM KASUS STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENT (SEP) (PERBANDINGAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA DI INDONESIA DAN UNI EROPA)

Sih Yuliana Wahyuningtyas
  Arena Hukum, Vol 14, No 2 (2021),  pp. 222-244  
Viewed : 116 times

Abstract


Abstract

The role of patents is complex when dealing with the problem of technological interoperability in cases where patented technology becomes standard. In such cases, a balance is needed between the protection of the interests of the inventor, i.e. the standard essential patent (SEP) holder, and of users who need the technology to enter the market. There is a susceptibility to restrictions on competition to create markets (competition for the market). Market dominance can be created by the adoption of SEP holder technology as a standard and hence, a key for other business actors to enter the market. With the potential for the formation of a dominant position in the relevant market, the competition law intervention is required when patent abuse occurs, as it appears typical in the pharmaceutical and information technology industries. The normative research examines how competition law in the European Union deals with SEP cases in comparison to Indonesian competition law.


Abstrak

Peran paten menjadi kompleks ketika berhadapan dengan persoalan interoperabilitas teknologi ketika teknologi yang dipatenkan menjadi standard. Dalam kasus-kasus demikian, diperlukan adanya perimbangan antara perlindungan atas kepentingan inventor yang mememegang standard essential patent (SEP) dengan kepentingan pengguna yang membutuhkan teknologi tersebut untuk masuk ke dalam pasar. Dalam hal ini, rentan terjadi pembatasan atas persaingan untuk membentuk pasar (competition for the market). Dominasi pasar dapat tercipta dengan diterimanya teknologi pemegang SEP sebagai standard dan kunci bagi pelaku usaha lain untuk masuk ke dalam pasar. Dengan potensi terbentuknya posisi dominan dalam pasar yang relevan bagi pemegang SEP tersebut, ruang analisis menjadi terbuka untuk hukum persaingan usaha ketika terjadi penyalahgunaan paten sebagaimana tampak khas dalam industri farmasi dan teknologi informasi. Penelitian yang menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normative ini menyajikan perkembangan yang terjadi di Uni Eropa. Permasalahan yang menjadi fokus dalam paper ini adalah analisis hukum persaingan usaha di Uni Eropa dalam kasus penyalahgunaan SEP dan perbandingannya dengan hukum persaingan Indonesia.


Keywords


restrictions to competition; standard essential patent (SEP); abuse of dominant position

Full Text:

PDF

References


Buku

Hansen, Knud, et.al. (eds.), Undang-Undang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Jakarta: Katalis, 2002).

Jurnal

Contreras, Jorge L., “Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standard-Based Patent Licensing”, Antitrust Law Journal Vol. 49, (2013): 47-97.

Cotter, Thomas F., “The Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties”, Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Vol. 22, (2014): 311-363.

Culley, Daneil, et.al., “Learning from Rambus How to Tame those Troublesome Trolls” The Antitrust Bulletin Vol. 57, No. 1, (2012): 117-160.

Drexl, Josef, “Anti-Competitive Stumbling Stones on the Way to A Cleaner World: Protecting Competition in Innovation Without A Market”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics Vol. 8, No. 3,

(2012): 507-542.

Encaoua, David and Hollander, Abrahamn, “Competition Policy and Innovation” Oxford Review of Economic Policy Vol. 18, No. 1, (2002): 63-79.

Epstein, Richard A.and Kappos, David J., “Legal Remedies for Patent Infringement: from General Principles to FRAND Obligations for Standard Essential Patents”, Compeition Policy International Vol. 9, No. 2, (Autumn 2013): 60-89.

Hovenkamp, Herbert J., “Competition in Information Technologies: Standard-Essential Patents, Non-Practicing Entities and FRAND Bidding”, University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-32. (October 3, 2012): 1-20.

Mariniello, Mario, “Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: A Challenge for Competition Authorities”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics Vol. 7, No. 3, (2011): 523-541.

Merges, Robert P., and Kuhn Jeffery M., “An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards”, California Law Review, Vo. 97, No. 1, (2009): 1-50.

Michael L. Katz and Carl Saphiro, ‘Systems Competition and Network Effects’, Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring 1994): 93–115.

Wallace, Joel. M., “Rambus v. F.T.C. in the Context of Standard-Setting Organizations, Antitrust, and the Patent Hold-Up Problem”, Berkley Technology Law Journal Vol. 24, (2009): 661-693.

Weber, Rolf H., “Competition Lawversus FRAND Terms in IT Markets”, World Competition 34, no. 1 (2011): 51–71.

Naskah Internet

Commission (EC), ‘To Commit or Not to Commit: Deciding between Prohibition and Commitments’ (Policy Brief, March 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpb/2014/003_en.pdf, diakses 4 Juli 2018.

DC Rambus v. FTC, 24 November 2008.

European Commission, "Patents and Standards: A Modern Framework for IP-Base Standardization" (Final Report, 25 March 2014), http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4843/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf, diakses 6 Juli 2018.

Fistrich, Simon, “Motorola vs. Apple: iPhone 3G und iPad Zeitweise Aus Apples Online-Store Verschwunden“, PC Games (6 Februari 2012), http://www.pcgames.de/Motorola-Firma-18761/GNews/Motorola-vs-Apple-iPhone-3G-und-iPad-zeitweise-aus-Apples-Online-Store-verschwunden-866789/, diakses 3 Juli 2018.

Jahn, Joachim, “Gericht Bremst Vertrieb von Apple-Produkten“, Frankfurter Allgemeine (3 Februari 2012), http://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/patentstreit-mit-motorola-gericht-bremst-vertrieb-von-apple-produkten-11636311.html, diakses 3 Juli 2018.

Kuch, Alexander “Dritte Motorola-Patentklage gegen Apple in Mannheim abgewiesen“, Teltarif (10 Februari 2012), http://www.teltarif.de/apple-motorola-patentsreit-landgericht-mannheim/news/45635.html, diakses 3 Juli 2018.

Marc Kessler, “Apple-Patentstreit: Motorola Fordert 2,25 Prozent Umsatzbeteiligung“, Teltarif (6 February 2012), http://www.teltarif.de/apple-motorola-patentstreit-lizenz-gebuehr-2-25-prozent-forderung-frand/news/45578.html, diakses 3 Juli 2018.

Rambus (Case COMP/38.636).

Peraturan Perundang-undangan

Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements Text with EEA relevance’ [2014] OJ 2014 L93/17.

Communication from the Commission (2011/C 11/01) of 14 January 2011 on ‘Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements’ [2011] OJ 2011 C11/1.

Communication from the Commission (2014/C 89/03) of 28 March 2014 on ‘Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer

agreements’ [2014] OJ 2014 C89/3.

Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L1/1.

Motorola (Case AT.39985) Commission Decision 2014/C 344/06 [2014] OJ C344/6.

Peraturan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No. 2 Tahun 2009 tentang Pedoman Pengecualian Penerapan UU No 5 1999 Berkaitan Dengan Hak Atas Kekayaan Intelektual.

Samsung (Case AT.39939) Commission Decision 2014/C 350/08 [2014] OJ 350/8.

Undang-undang No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.

Undang-undang No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta.

Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten.

X/Open Group (Case IV/31.458) Commisssion Decision 87/69/EEC [1987] OJ L 35/36.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Arena Hukum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.