China Law Insight : China Business and Intellectual Property Lawyers & Attorneys : King & Wood Law Firm : IP, Arbitration, Litigation, Securities, Foreign Investment

The Hong Kong Government has decided to introduce a cross-sector competition law during the 2008-09 legislative session. The Government has published a draft framework for the competition law and is currently seeking public comments on this draft.

The introduction of a competition law is a significant step for an economy to take. Not all competition laws are the same and the most important thing is that the law is designed well to suit the Hong Kong economy.

I. Key features of the draft framework paper

A. Competition rules
There are three core prohibitions commonly found in competition laws around the world. These are a prohibition against horizontal coordinated conduct such as price fixing between competitors; a prohibition on an abuse of unilateral market power (sometimes called an abuse of dominance or otherwise called an abuse of a substantial degree of market power); and a prohibition against anticompetitive mergers.

The competition law would contain two broad prohibitions:

• prohibition against undertakings (individuals, companies or other entities engaged in economic activities) entering into agreements, decisions or concerted practices with the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition (the "First Conduct Rule"); and

• prohibition against undertakings that possess a substantial degree of market power from abusing that power with the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition (the "Second Conduct Rule").

The Public Consultation Paper also raises the possibility of a prohibition against mergers or acquisitions that are likely to substantially lessen competition (the "Merger Rule") and a clearance process for mergers and acquisitions. If this possibility was not adopted, it would put the Hong Kong competition law out of step with most other competition law regimes around the world.

Also prohibited in some jurisdictions and not in others is certain vertical conduct like resale price maintenance. For example, the competition law on the Mainland contains such a provision. However, in step with recent US case law, Singapore does not prohibit such vertical conduct. The proposed Hong Kong law would follow the latter course.

*Nick Taylor is a partner of Gilbert+Tobin, a strategic partner of King & Wood since November 2007.
**Kenneth Choy is a Partner King & Wood - Hong Kong.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

At first glance, the goals of intellectual property law and competition law might appear to conflict. IPR owners are granted statutory rights to control access and charge monopoly rents to others for use of their rights. IPR owners may also use terms of IPR licences to regulate downstream activities of their distributors, such as imposing exclusivity, territorial restraints and price restraints. Competition law, on the other hand, is directed at curtailing such market power which may prove harmful to economic welfare.

 However, IP laws and competition laws can also be seen as complementary rather than antagonistic. Both laws share the same fundamental goals of enhancing consumer welfare and promoting innovation. According to the United States (US) Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) :

 “…[competition] laws protect robust competition in the marketplace, while intellectual property laws protect the ability to earn a return on the investments necessary to innovate. Both spur competition among rivals to be the first to enter the marketplace with a desirable technology, product, or service.”

 While an IPR may confer a “legal monopoly” over a product, process or work, it does not necessarily confer an “economic monopoly”. Further, while an IP license may well confer restraints on licensees (such as territorial restraints) with respect to a specific product, process or work, there may be sufficient actual or potential close substitutes that constrain the exercise of market power by the IPR owner.

 Despite the view that the goals of IP and competition laws are complementary, difficult questions can arise when competition law is applied to specific activities involving IPRs.

A. China's AML:  Article 55

 The IPR provision in the AML is set out in Article 55:

“This law shall not apply to the conduct of operators to exercise their intellectual property rights in accordance with the laws and relevant administrative regulations on intellectual property rights; however, this law shall apply to the conduct of operators to eliminate or restrict market competition by abusing their intellectual property rights.”

 Article 55 exempts conduct which amounts to an exercise of IPRs so long as:  those IPRs are exercised in accordance with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations relating to IPRs; and the conduct does not amount to an abuse of IPRs by eliminating or restricting competition.

 The Article 55 approach is very similar to the approaches in Australia and Canada. In both these countries, there has been debate about when the IPR owner is only fairly exercising their inherent rights in the IPR or is trying to achieve something more which has an anti-competitive outcome. Experiences in both countries show that this dividing line can be difficult to draw.

* Angie Ng is a graduate in the Competition and Regulatory Group at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, Australia.

** Ding Liang is of counsel for King & Wood's International Trade Practice in Beijing.

*** Peter Waters is a partner in the Competition and Regulatory Group at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, Australia.

King & Wood established a strategic alliance with Gilbert + Tobin in November 2007.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks