1,181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticisms
'''Elimination of Competition''': Opponents criticize patent pools for the potential of anti-competitive behavior and collusion, primarily with regards to substitute patents. Substitute or non-essential patents cover competing technologies that can be developed in parallel without risk of infringement [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf]. Patent pools formed between companies holding substitute patents eliminate competition in that particular technological sector. The [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf|World Intellectual Property Organization] refers to patent pools exhibiting this behavior as cartels. Certain patent pools have been found to share competetitively sensitive information such as marketing and pricing strategies and R&D findings.[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf] For example, R&D information and developments could be shared in grant-back provisions, where companies share new or downstream technologies and innovations with members of the pool without additional fees.
'''Licensing Practices''': If a patent pool restricts its members from licensing its patents independently, it lowers the incentive to produce alternatives and inflates the costs of goods or technology for consumers. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission stated that patent pools may create barriers to entry for new firms since the required patents will be inaccessible [http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2007/07/11/222655.pdf (DOJ)] Additionally, downstream products or firms may unknowingly use technology protected by a patent pool. An article published by the [http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10778.pdf|NBER] claims that these companies may then be burdened by cumulative taxes and a time holdup in production.
'''Pricing''': Given agreements between patent holders to reduce royalties, there may be collusion to fix higher prices for consumers. Technology may become inaccessible to a large number of consumers, hurting the overall public good.
