Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think the problem was the earlier case against the service company may have been driven by a desire to monopolize repair of a certain part, and the patent side might have been frivolous. My case was solid. It was just a big company afraid to have something blow up on them again.

There is a sort of tension between patent law and antitrust law, in that patent law is about getting the exclusive right to use a certain technology, and antitrust law is about preserving the benefits of competition. But that exclusive IP right is about an input to competition in a broader market. If you have the exclusive right to operate a ferry across a certain stretch of river, and someone builds a bridge there, you may still have an exclusive right to that technology, but you can't charge whatever you want because people might use the bridge instead. (But is the bridge made of cellophane, Adder?) Also, antitrust law says it's OK to get a monopoly if you do it by competing on the merits, which might mean building a better mousetrap and patenting it.