On the Competition Policy panel, Peter
Plompen of Philips made an important point in his presentation: a legal
monopoly is not per se a market monopoly. This is a point that proponents
of IP need to make more often.
It's true in almost every area. At the most basic level, the fact that you own the patent on an anti-allergy drug doesn't mean that you have the ONLY anti-allergy drug on the market. In many areas, there are multiple products competing for the same MARKET, each of which is protected by IP.
Also, the holders of legal monopolies very frequently license the technology to other companies to implement. These implementations often compete directly with the products of the patent-holder, and more often than not actually OUT-compete the patent holder.
So let's not let people get away with criticizing IP just by calling it a "monopoly." It IS a monopoly, but that doesn't mean that those who own it can behave monopolistically.
It's true in almost every area. At the most basic level, the fact that you own the patent on an anti-allergy drug doesn't mean that you have the ONLY anti-allergy drug on the market. In many areas, there are multiple products competing for the same MARKET, each of which is protected by IP.
Also, the holders of legal monopolies very frequently license the technology to other companies to implement. These implementations often compete directly with the products of the patent-holder, and more often than not actually OUT-compete the patent holder.
So let's not let people get away with criticizing IP just by calling it a "monopoly." It IS a monopoly, but that doesn't mean that those who own it can behave monopolistically.