The Essential-Facilities-Doctrine in the USA, EU and Switzerland
With a special focus on FRAND
La théorie d’infrastructure essentielle se réfère à un comportement anticoncurrentiel consistant en l'utilisation par une entreprise d’une situation « d’embouteillage » sur un marché pour empêcher l’entrée des concurrents sur ce marché. Le présent article offre un aperçu de la théorie de l’infrastructure essentielle. La partie A contient une présentation générale de la théorie d’infrastructure essentielle ainsi que l'examen de certaines questions toujours ouvertes. La partie B aborde une sélection de la jurisprudence pertinente aux Etats-Unis, dans l’Union européenne et en Suisse. La partie C se concentre sur l’arbitrage et sur le principe FRAND, ce dernier étant par ailleurs un sujet controversé au sein de la Commission de l’UE (voir p.ex. l’affaire Qualcomm). Enfin, la partie D clôt l’article avec une conclusion et un pronostic pour l’avenir. (bb)
Inhaltsverzeichnis
- Part A. The Essential-Facilities-Doctrine
- I. Introduction
- 1. The Essential-Facility-Doctrine – what's the issue?
- a. An example
- b. Attempt of a possible definition
- c. USA
- d. EC and Switzerland
- e. Different Competition Policies
- 2. The Essential-Facility-Doctrine and its issues to be solved
- a. Remove the incentive to invest in the establishment of an essential-facility
- b. More economic approach versus the traditional system of competition law
- c. Appropriate price for access to an essential facility
- d. Refusal to license intellectual property rights and refusal to supply information needed for interoperability
- e. Justified reasons for denying the access for an essential facility?
- Part B. The leading cases in the USA, EU and Switzerland
- I. USA
- 1. Introduction
- 2. United States versus Terminal Railroad Association (1912)
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note
- 3. Hecht versus Pro Football Inc. (1977)
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note
- 4. MCI Communications versus American Tel. Co. (1983)
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note
- 5. Verizon versus Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis Trinko (2004)
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. A new element by the Supreme Court
- 6. Summary and Conclusion
- a. The main issue
- b. Elements of the Essential-Facilities-Doctrine
- c. Tendency by the courts?
- II. EU
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Magill, 1995
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note
- 3. Bronner
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- 4. IMS Health
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note – Further legal aspects
- 5. Conclusion
- III. Switzerland
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Telecom PTT (Blue Window)
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note
- 3. BKW FMB Energie
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- c. Note
- 4. Electriques Fribourgois
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- 5. Swiss Football League
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- 6. Pay-TV-Market
- a. Facts of the case
- b. Legal aspects
- 7. Conclusion
- Part C. FRAND
- I. Introduction
- 1. Background and Definition
- 2. The Terms
- 3. Legal Problems with the FRAND-Commitment
- 4. FRAND, Article 102 TFEU and the Case of Qualcomm
- II. FRAND and the Essential-Facilities-Doctrine
- 1. Exclusionary Power
- 2. Comparing the Essential-Facilities-Doctrine and compulsory licensing
- a. The Essence of Access Price
- b. Access Price
- III. Arbitration
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Essential Facility Cases and Arbitration
- Part D. Summary and Prospects
- I. Essential-Facilities-Doctrine in US, EU and Switzerland
- II. Prospects
- Appendix A (Sherman Antitrust Act)
- Appendix B (TFEU)
- Appendix C (Swiss Antitrust Act)
- Appendix D (FRAND – Current Developments in the EC)
- List of Abbreviations
- Literature
- Materials
- Links
Loggen Sie sich bitte ein, um den ganzen Text zu lesen.
Es gibt noch keine Kommentare
Votre commentaire sur cet article
Les abonné-e-s à cette revue peuvent prendre part à la discussion. Veuillez vous connecter pour poster des commentaires.
Aucun commentaire