Diapositiva 1

Propiedad Intelectual y Libre
Competencia
¿Cómo lograr que la primera
sea compatible con la
segunda?
MARIO YBAR
JEFE FUSIONES Y ESTUDIOS
FISCALÍA NACIONAL ECONÓMICA
SANTIAGO, octubre de 2012
Nociones generales
Patentes y poder de
mercado.
¿Qué se necesita para que no exista
contradicción? Equilibrio entre
creación y diseminación.
Propiedad intelectual es una excepción al
régimen de competencia.
En teoría, no hay contradicción.
Ambas ramas persiguen el mismo
objetivo final.
Distintas Visiones Sobre la Propiedad Intelectual
¿Qué se necesita para generar un ambiente propicio a la
innovación? Existencia de un nutrido dominio público de
ideas y protección significativa para las innovaciones
significativas (Herbert Hovenkamp, “Creation Without
Restraint”.)
Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as under protecting
it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today,
like nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like
science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator
building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection
Stifles the very creative forces it s suppose to nurture (Judge Alex
Kozinski. White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 1513
(9th Cir. 1993) Dissenting opinion
Thomas Jefferson: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible
than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power
called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as
he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into
the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself
of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
The Founders' Constitution Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8,
Document 12
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
The University of Chicago Press
J. Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Bowring, ed.)
(1843). IPRs are a “trivial cost” to society as “an exclusive
privilege is absolutely necessary in order that what is sown
may be repeated”, because an inventor “who has no hope
that he shall reap will not take the trouble to sow
•
The inventor is one who has discovered something of value. It is his
absolute property. He may withhold the knowledge of it from the public,
and he may insist upon all the advantages and benefits which the
statute promises to him who discloses to the public his invention”.
(1908)
Corte Suprema USA
¿Quién debe hacerse cargo de resguardar el
equilibrio, y qué debe hacer?
Lo primero, tener el marco normativo
adecuado.
En segundo lugar, dicho rol corresponde a
las autoridades de propiedad intelectual
Finalmente, y solo residualmente, esa función
recae sobre los organismos de competencia
1.
La patente debe ser difícil de obtener.
No tiene sentido crear un monopolio sin obtener
verdadera innovación a cambio. Menos todavía,
conceder un monopolio a cambio de una innovación
que se hubiese producido de todos modos.
“Congress may not authorize the issuance of patents
whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from
the public domain, or to restrict free access to materials
already available”. (Corte Suprema Estados Unidos.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. i,6 (1966)
Artículo 32º, Ley 19.039: Una invención será patentable
cuando sea nueva, tenga nivel inventivo y sea
susceptible de aplicación industrial.
2. La patente debe recaer sobre una verdadera invención
3. La patente debe ser conocida y tener límites
definidos
6. Infractores inocentes
7. Necesidad de acreditar el daño
8. Diferenciación según mercado
4. La patente debe tener una duración razonable
Críticas al regimen actual de competencia en USA y otros países
Posner: My general sense, however,
bolstered by an extensive academic
literature, is that patent protection is on the
whole excessive and that major reforms
are necessary
Hovenkamp: "Antitrust Policy
has often reflected
exaggerated fears of competitive harm, and responded by
developing overly protective rules that shielded inefficient
business from competition at the expense of the consumers.
By the same token, the IP laws have often undermined rather
than promoted innovation by granting IP holders rights far
beyond what is necessary to create appropriate incentives to
innovate”