What is the relationship between antitrust and intellectual property protection?

The formulation and implementation of anti-monopoly law is an important event in our social life. It shows the people that the monopolistic behavior that violates the fair competition order is an illegal behavior that is not allowed by our laws. The implementation of this law will have a very important impact on China's economic life. It is very important to standardize the order of fair competition in China and prevent and stop monopolistic behaviors that harm national interests and public interests. It should be said that intellectual property law and anti-monopoly law are essentially the same, and there is no fundamental conflict between them. The reason why the Anti-Monopoly Law does not apply to the behavior of business operators in exercising intellectual property rights according to laws and administrative regulations on intellectual property rights is that intellectual property rights are legal monopoly rights, and it is justified and necessary to give such monopoly rights. Of course, due to the possibility of abuse and monopoly of intellectual property rights, there are certain contradictions and conflicts between anti-monopoly law and intellectual property law. Compared with other laws and regulations in China, the anti-monopoly law has unique characteristics and advantages in regulating the abuse of intellectual property rights, that is, the act of swearing abuse of intellectual property rights in the basic anti-monopoly law is illegal and should be regulated. By stipulating the abuse of intellectual property rights in the anti-monopoly law, it can provide a very clear legal basis for other laws to regulate and deal with the abuse of intellectual property rights in practice.

However, the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law on the abuse of intellectual property rights are still simple. Judging from the legal provisions, there is only one legal provision. The Anti-Monopoly Law does not clearly define the meaning of intellectual property abuse, nor does it clearly list which behaviors belong to intellectual property abuse. These need to be further improved.

How to define the abuse of intellectual property rights can be understood as the behavior of intellectual property rights holders who go beyond the legal scope permitted by law when exercising their rights, which constitutes an obstacle to others' legitimate use of intellectual property rights, thus harming the interests of others and the public. The abuse of intellectual property rights is relative to the proper use of intellectual property rights. The standard to measure whether intellectual property rights are abused depends on whether the behavior of intellectual property rights holders is beyond the scope of legal monopoly, and on macro policy, it depends on whether the behavior of intellectual property rights holders is in line with the public policy objectives of intellectual property law.

The provisions of anti-monopoly law on the abuse of intellectual property rights provide a basic legal basis for other relevant laws, including the special law on intellectual property rights, to regulate the abuse of intellectual property rights. China's basic special laws on intellectual property rights, such as patent law, trademark law and copyright law, fully and effectively protect the interests of intellectual property owners, but it is also necessary to make principled provisions on the abuse of intellectual property rights. In fact, the intellectual property system itself is a system that balances the protection of intellectual property rights and reasonably limits the interests of intellectual property rights. In the future, it is really necessary to make corresponding amendments when amending the corresponding special laws on intellectual property rights in China.

In fact, the third revised draft of China's patent law has been involved. What deserves special attention is the anti-competitive behavior in intellectual property licensing, and the abuse of intellectual property rights holders in safeguarding rights, including the abuse of litigation rights and the abuse of temporary injunctions.

It reflects the eager expectation of domestic enterprises to stop illegal monopoly, because Microsoft is a multinational giant with strong scientific and technological economic strength, especially in controlling the market and technology by using intellectual property rights. Of course, it is a case to sue for monopolistic behavior that violates the anti-monopoly law. Who will be the "first" defendant in China's anti-monopoly depends on the actual situation.