DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Paper in Pdf Format

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Paper in Pdf Format Staff Working Paper ERSD-2018-02 6 March 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ World Trade Organization Economic Research and Statistics Division ______________________________________________________________________ COMPETITION AGENCY GUIDELINES AND POLICY INITIATIVES REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF COMPETITION LAW VIS-À-VIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: AN ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTIONAL APPROACHES AND EMERGING DIRECTIONS Robert D. Anderson, Jianning Chen, Anna Caroline Müller, Daria Novozhilkina, Philippe Pelletier, Nivedita Sen and Nadezhda Sporysheva1 Manuscript date: 4 March 2018 1 Anderson: Counsellor and Team Leader for Government Procurement and Competition Policy, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat; Honorary Professor, School of Law, University of Nottingham, UK; External Faculty Member, World Trade Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland; and External Faculty Member, International Economic Law and Policy (IELPO) Program, Faculty of Law, University of Barcelona. Chen: Legal Affairs Officer, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Müller: Legal Affairs Officer, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Novozhilkina: Attorney at Law (Russia); Fellow (WIPO). Pelletier: Legal Affairs Officer, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Sen: Doctoral Candidate in International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. Sporysheva: Legal/Economic Analyst, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Antonella Salgueiro provided valuable assistance in checking and finalizing the paper. The detailed and helpful suggestions of Antony Taubman are gratefully acknowledged, as are helpful discussions with Bill Kovacic, Alberto Heimler and Eleanor Fox. Any views expressed are the personal responsibility of the authors and should not be attributed to the WTO Secretariat or to any other organizations with which they are affiliated. Prepared for publication in Robert D. Anderson, Nuno Pires De Carvalho and Antony Taubman (eds.), Competition Policy and Intellectual Property in Today's Global Economy (Cambridge University Press, World Intellectual Property Organization and World Trade Organization, forthcoming) COMPETITION AGENCY GUIDELINES AND POLICY INITIATIVES REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF COMPETITION LAW VIS-À-VIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: AN ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTIONAL APPROACHES AND EMERGING DIRECTIONS Robert D. Anderson, Jianning Chen, Anna Caroline Müller, Daria Novozhilkina, Philippe Pelletier, Nivedita Sen and Nadezhda Sporysheva1 Abstract Competition agency guidelines, policy statements and related advocacy are an important vehicle for policy expression and the guidance of firms across the full spectrum of anti-competitive practices and market conduct. The role of guidelines and policy statements has, arguably, been particularly important in the context of the competition policy treatment of intellectual property rights, given the complexity of this area, the importance that competition agencies attach to it, and its importance for innovation, technology transfer and economic growth. As such, this important normative material also provides a useful empirical foundation for mapping relevant trends and the evolution of policy thinking over time and across jurisdictions. In this light, the paper examines the competition agency guidelines, policy statements and related initiatives regarding intellectual property (IP) of the following three sets of jurisdictions: (i) the United States, Canada, the European Union and Australia; (ii) Japan and Korea; and (iii) the BRICS economies (Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa). It focuses, to the extent possible, on a common set of issues addressed in one way or another in the majority of these jurisdictions, comprising: (i) the treatment of licensing practices, including refusals to license; (ii) anti-competitive patent settlements; (iii) issues concerning standard-essential patents (SEPs); (iv) the conduct of patent assertion entities (PAEs); and (v) competition advocacy activities focused on the IP system. Additionally, while the primary focus of the paper is on competition agency guidelines, policy statements and advocacy activities relating to IP, reference is also made to enforcement and case developments where they are helpful in illustrating relevant approaches and trends. Overall, the analysis suggests, firstly, that, in contrast to the situation prevailing twenty or thirty years ago, interest in the systematic application of competition law vis-à-vis IP certainly is no longer a preoccupation of only a few traditional developed jurisdictions. Secondly, we find evidence of significant cross-jurisdictional learning processes and partial policy convergence across the jurisdictions surveyed. Thirdly, the analysis also reveals the continuing potential for coordination failures in regard to the approaches taken by national authorities in this area, for example where jurisdictions take different approaches to specific practices such as refusals to license and/or give differing weights to industrial policy as opposed to consumer welfare or other objectives in their policy applications. Key words: competition agency guidelines, intellectual property, antitrust, innovation, licensing agreements, refusal to license, anti-competitive patent settlements, standard-essential patents (SEPs), patent assertion entities (PAEs), competition advocacy. JEL classifications: K21, L4, L41, L43, O3, O34 1 Anderson: Counsellor and Team Leader for Government Procurement and Competition Policy, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat; Honorary Professor, School of Law, University of Nottingham, UK; External Faculty Member, World Trade Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland; and External Faculty Member, International Economic Law and Policy (IELPO) Program, Faculty of Law, University of Barcelona. Chen: Legal Affairs Officer, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Müller: Legal Affairs Officer, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Novozhilkina: Attorney at Law (Russia); Fellow (WIPO). Pelletier: Legal Affairs Officer, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Sen: Doctoral Candidate in International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. Sporysheva: Legal/Economic Analyst, Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division, WTO Secretariat. Antonella Salgueiro provided valuable assistance in checking and finalizing the paper. The detailed and helpful suggestions of Antony Taubman are gratefully acknowledged, as are helpful discussions with Bill Kovacic, Alberto Heimler and Eleanor Fox. Any views expressed are the personal responsibility of the authors and should not be attributed to the WTO Secretariat or to any other organizations with which they are affiliated. 2 Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 II. TRADITIONAL DEVELOPED JURISDICTIONS: THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION AND AUSTRALIA .................................................. 7 1. The United States .................................................................................................... 7 (1) Introduction and context ............................................................................................. 7 (2) Scope of the current US Guidelines ............................................................................... 8 (3) Doctrinal content of the US Guidelines .......................................................................... 8 (4) Other enforcement issues addressed by the US competition agencies separately from the 1995 and 2017 Licensing Guidelines ........................................................................10 (5) Competition advocacy regarding the IP system .............................................................12 2. Canada .................................................................................................................. 12 (1) Introduction and context ............................................................................................12 (2) Scope of the 2016 Canadian IPEGs ..............................................................................13 (3) Doctrinal content of the Canadian Guidelines ................................................................13 (4) Competition advocacy regarding the IP system .............................................................16 3. The European Union .............................................................................................. 17 (1) Introduction and context ............................................................................................17 (2) Scope of relevant instruments ....................................................................................19 (3) Doctrinal content of the EU Regulation and Guidelines ...................................................19 (4) Issues addressed by the EC separately from the TTBER and the Guidelines: Patent Assertion Entities ...............................................................................................................22
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enhancing the Role of Competition in the Regulation of Banks (1998)
    Enhancing the Role of Competition in Regulation of Banks 1998 The OECD Competition Committee the role of competition in the regulation of banks in February 1998. This document includes an executive summary and submissions from Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as an aide-memoire of the discussion. The banking sector is one of the most closely regulated sectors of OECD economies. A reason advanced for this close regulation is that small depositors cannot compare risks (or have no incentive to do so, because of deposit insurance), so competition would lead banks to take excessive risks. Controls on risk taking are considered essential to ensure that competition between banks promotes efficient outcomes. Public policy concerns focus on how bank failures could affect small depositors, the payments system and the stability of the financial system as a whole. The goal of promoting or preserving competition might conflict with some actions to deal with bank failures, emergency measures or state aid for failing banks or implicit state support for large banks. In most OECD countries bank regulators and competition authorities are jointly responsible for bank mergers, so interaction and coordination between them are necessary. Because of the political and economic sensitivity of the banking sector, it is perhaps not surprising that some countries apply special competition regimes to it. OECD Council Recommendation on Merger Review (2005) Mergers in Financial Services (2000) Relationship between Regulators and Competition Authorities (1998) Failing Firm Defense (1995) Unclassified DAFFE/CLP(98)16 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques OLIS : 07-Sep-1998 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Dist.
    [Show full text]
  • Latent Dangers in a Patent Pool: the European Commission's Approval of the 3G Wireless Technology Licensing Agreements
    Latent Dangers in a Patent Pool: The European Commission's Approval of the 3G Wireless Technology Licensing Agreements Michael R. Franzingert TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................1695 I. B ackground .....................................................................................1698 A. The Evolution of Standards in the Wireless Communications Indu stry .....................................................................................1698 1. The 2G Mobile Telephone Standards .................................1698 2. The 3G Mobile Communication Standards ........................1699 B. Europe's Past Efforts at Standardization ..................................1700 C. Licensing of Essential Patents for 3G Standards ......................1702 II. The European Commission's Competition Law .............................1708 A. Article 81: The Foundation of European Antitrust Doctrine ...1709 B. New Block Exemptions, Individual Exemptions, and "C om fort L etters". ....................................................................1710 1. The Technology Transfer Block Exemption ......................1711 2. Exceptions Developed in Individual Cases ........................1712 III. A nalysis ...........................................................................................17 14 A. The Japanese Fair Trade Commission's Early Clearance of the Platform ..........................................................................1714 Copyright © 2003
    [Show full text]
  • Research Versus Development: Patent Pooling, Innovation and Standardization in the Software Industry
    RESEARCH VERSUS DEVELOPMENT: PATENT POOLING, INNOVATION AND STANDARDIZATION IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY DANIEL LIN ABSTRACT Despite the impressive pace of modern invention, a certain "patent thicket" effect that may be impeding what has become an increasingly difficult road to the commercialization of new technologies. Specifically, as new technologies build upon old technologies, they necessarily become increasingly complex, and as a result, are often subject to the protection of multiple patents, covering both the new cumulative technologies as well as old foundational technologies. The difficulties of acquiring licenses (e.g. hold-out problems) for all such patents has the potential to stifle the development and commercialization of these new technologies. As such, patent pooling, once condemned as facilitating antitrust violations in past eras, has been reintroduced as a practice that, if properly structured, has potentially strong pro-competitive benefits. Patent pooling has the potential to reduce the level of research and invention in new technologies that can compete with an incumbent standard. Recent patent jurisprudence and lenient federal antitrust agency of recent patent pooling proposals seem to create an environment that encourages the resurgence of patent pooling. Copyright © 2002 The John Marshall Law School Cite as 1 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 274 RESEARCH VERSUS DEVELOPMENT: PATENT POOLING, INNOVATION AND STANDARDIZATION IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY DANIEL LIN* The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affair?" he asked. The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new editing program," he said, "a program that will replace all these others." Suddenly, the master struck the novice on the side of his head.
    [Show full text]
  • VIII EUROSAI Congress Theme II the Audit of the Independent Regulatory
    VIII EUROSAI Congress Theme II The audit of the Independent Regulatory Agencies by SAIs Discussion Paper REGULATORS AND THEIR ROLE IN REGULATED SECTORS 1. As governments divest themselves of businesses providing goods and services for their peoples, independent regulators grow in importance as institutions which can control monopolistic or dominant sectors and those important for national economic security. The input provided by SAIs points out to the significance of regulators not only to the regulated sectors, but also to the national economy as a whole. SAIs' answers confirm that regulators exist in all the countries. 2. Three primary groups have been identified across regulated sectors: general competition, financial and infrastructure. a. General competition – regulation of competition, consumer protection, and general trade. b. Financial – central banks, financial supervision authorities, securities market authorities, insurance supervision authorities, stock exchange commissions, pension fund supervisory authorities. c. Infrastructure: i. Energy: (gas, electricity, heating, water, oil, other fuels regulators, power plant regulators, mining and petrol pumping regulators, energy industries regulators, energy and water regulators, nuclear security regulators). ii. Transport (infrastructure and services) (train, bus, ferry service regulators, railway, airport, port and road infrastructure regulators) iii. Communications (post, electronic communication, telecom regulators). Regulators for general-competition sectors were established in 12 countries, for financial sectors – in 20 countries, for energy sectors – in 19 countries, for transport sectors – in 11 countries, for communications sectors – in 15 countries. 3. The number of the regulated sectors is not equivalent to the number of regulators, as in some cases one regulator deals with more than one sector (e.g. Germany –– Federal Network Agency regulates three sectors: energy, communication, transport), whereas in others one sector is regulated by more than one authority (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4. the Japan Fair Trade Commission 22 3.5
    INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION NETWORK Advocacy Working Group Report prepared by the subgroup n°3 : case studies Mérida, Mexcio June 2003 1. PREFACE The mandate of the Subgroup on Advocacy in Specific Sectors of the Advocacy Working Group of the ICN, as established at its first Annual Conference in Naples last year, was to undertake studies about advocacy efforts in specific regulated sectors in member countries with a focus on the principles involved, advocacy techniques employed, the role of the competition agency in those sectors, the interface between competition authorities and regulatory bodies, and the successes and failures of the advocacy efforts. It was suggested that the subgroup would invite ICN members to share their experiences in this field by submitting brief contributions on the sectors to be selected. In order to maintain the work within manageable proportions, it was decided at an early stage to limit the scope of the efforts of the subgroup to the following four sectors: (i) telecommunications, (ii) energy, (iii) airline industry and (iv) legal professions. Early this year the agency that chaired the subgroup (France) sent out an invitation to members asking them to contribute on each of these sectors with a small paper setting out their experiences. Responses were received from eleven countries, some provided responses covering all four sectors while others responded to only some of them. The total number of contributions was 24. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the exercise. Apart from this introduction it comprises a list of documents, a table classifying the contributions by sector and country and four sectoral chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2018 Special 301 Submission
    By electronic submission Sung Chang Director for Innovation and IP Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Washington, DC U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2018 SPECIAL 301 SUBMISSION Submitted electronically to USTR via http://www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR- 2017-0024. 1 February 8, 2018 Sung Chang Director for Innovation and IP Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 600 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20508 Re: 2018 Special 301 Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public Comment and Announcement of Public Hearing, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Dear Mr. Chang: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s (“U.S. Chamber” or “Chamber”) Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) is pleased to provide you with our submission for the U.S. Trade Representative’s Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public Comment. The Chamber has participated in this annual exercise to analyze the global intellectual property (IP) environment for many years and is encouraged that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has prioritized its commitment to promote property rights as a way to foster development and prosperity. We urge the U.S. government to continue to use all available means to work with our trading partners to address these challenges. The Chamber is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. It also houses the largest international staff within any business association, providing global coverage to advance the many policy interests of our members.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Competition Regulator Announces Wide Ranging Competition Inquiry Into Retail Sector
    Retail Team Antitrust and Competition Client Service Group To: Our Clients and Friends April 2015 UK competition regulator announces wide ranging competition inquiry into retail sector On 27 March 2014, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced an unspecified, wide ranging competition law investigation into the clothing, footwear and fashion sector. Whilst the CMA has released few details of the investigation, it has specified that it will carry out the investigation under the Competition Act 1998 using personnel from its civil cartel team. The focus of the investigation will therefore likely be in relation to civil cartel behaviour such as price fixing or market sharing between competitors, rather than any criminal investigation under Section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Civil cartel infringements can include market or customer sharing, bid rigging, price-fixing and attempts to restrict production. Unconfirmed reports circulating are that the investigation may relate to geo-blocking. Geo-blocking is the practice of blocking online sales across borders by redirecting international customers back to their own domestic websites or blocking the use of foreign delivery addresses or credit cards. This may be done to prohibit customers from benefitting from favourable exchange rates or lower prices for the same product in less affluent countries. Today, nearly half of EU customers buy goods on-line. As a consequence, the theory goes that any restrictive practices in internet commerce will have a particularly pronounced effect on competition in the retail sector. However, this is not the first time the CMA has targeted the retail sector. We reported a similar investigation in late 2013 into alleged retail price maintenance for sports bras by a number of retail stores.
    [Show full text]
  • What Needs to Be Done to Deliver an EU Compatible Competition Regulatory Framework in Ukraine? Antitrust and Competition Client
    Antitrust and Competition Client Service Group To: Our Clients and Friends August 2014 What needs to be done to deliver an EU compatible competition regulatory framework in Ukraine? Introduction Despite the geopolitical turmoil that has affected the east of the country nothing should mask the highly significant step that Ukraine took on 27 June 2014, when it signed up to the economic section (the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area sections (DCFTA)) of its controversial Association Agreement with the European Union (the Agreement). The political section of the Agreement was signed on 21st March earlier this year. Background Ukraine is a key partner in the Eastern Partnership, part of the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy. Since 1998 the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement has allowed the EU and Ukraine to cooperate with one another on all major aspects of reform. This will now be replaced by the Agreement including DCFTA which will hopefully put Ukraine on the path to eventual EU membership bringing with it political stability, territorial security and economic prosperity. One of the key foundations of that economic prosperity will be the establishment of an effective, non-discriminatory and transparent competition enforcement regime. The Agreement contains important obligations upon Ukraine to approximate its competition laws with those of the European Union. In this article we look at a number of steps Ukraine can take to achieve that. The Agreement The key provisions in the Agreement which relate to competition policy are set out in Chapter 10, Articles 253 to 267. (i) Competition and Mergers The Agreement prohibits and sanctions certain practices and transactions which could distort competition and trade (see Article 254).
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Competition/Antitrust Law Issues and Brexit
    Practical Competition/Antitrust Law Issues and Brexit Matthew Hall Solicitor (England & Wales/Republic of Ireland), Brussels Bar (E List) Vice Chair, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, International Committee McGuireWoods LLP Brussels, Belgium [email protected] ABA Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting February 2017 1 Practical Competition/Antitrust Law Issues and Brexit Following the “Brexit” referendum vote in June 2016, the exact timing of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union (EU), not to mention the form it will take, remains unknown. However, the outline of the final position is reasonably certain. Brexit will be a so-called “hard Brexit” and the UK is likely to have left the EU by March 2019. “Hard Brexit” means that the UK will not be a member of the EU’s Single Market and will not be a European Economic Area (EEA1) Member State. It will be outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU’s highest court. The level playing field for business within the EU/EEA, including EU competition/antitrust law2, will no longer apply to/in the UK. It will also be outside the EU Customs Union3. Companies operating in or trading into the UK should be, and many are, actively carrying out a risk identification and assessment exercise. This is essentially an audit, which needs to consider both broad structural issues (the scope and location of a business) and its operations and activities (contracts, trading and the like). It allows a company to identify the steps which it should be taking now (pre-Brexit4) and might take in the future both to protect its business and to take advantage of the undoubted business opportunities which arise in the UK and the rest of the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Cyprus
    Chapter 2 Cyprus TABLE OF CONTENTS A. The General Approach toward Relevant Market Definition in Competition Law in Cyprus 5 I. Introduction 5 1. Relevant Legislation 5 2. Relevant Competition Authorities 5 II. Relevant market definition in competition law in Cyprus 6 1. Definition of relevant product market 7 a) Demand side substitutability tests 8 aa. Characteristics of the product 9 bb. Intended use 10 cc. The price of the product 10 dd. SSNIP Test 11 b) Supply side substitutability tests 11 2. Definition of relevant geographic market 12 3. Entry barriers 13 4. Other tests 14 B. Repertoire of relevant product and geographic markets in the media sector in Cyprus 15 I. Publishing 15 II. Music-copyright 15 III. Broadcasting and associated rights 15 1. The upstream market for television broadcasting rights of football matches organized by the Cyprus Football Federation 16 2. The downstream market for securing advertising revenue on the basis of audience rates, and/or pay-TV subscribers 17 3. The upstream and downstream markets for the sale and acquisition of broadcasting rights of football matches for the new media (wireless/3G/UMTS and Internet) 18 IV Film sector 18 V. Internet 20 C. Comparative analysis of methodologies of the European Commission and the Commission for the Protection of Competition on market definition, and the findings of the both institutions 20 I. Broadcasting and associated rights 20 II. Film Sector 21 III. Internet markets 22 Conclusions 23 Table of relevant markets identified in Cyprus with regard to media sectors 24 D. Impact of Different Regulatory Frameworks on Market Definitions 26 Introduction 26 I Regulatory frameworks in Cyprus having an impact on the media sector 31 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Bullying”
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\90-2\NDL203.txt unknown Seq: 1 30-DEC-14 16:13 THE VONAGE TRILOGY: A CASE STUDY IN “PATENT BULLYING” Ted Sichelman* ABSTRACT This Article presents an in-depth case study of a series of infringement suits filed by “patent bullies.” Unlike the oft-discussed “patent trolls”—which typically sell no products or services and perform no R&D—patent bullies are large, established operating companies that threaten or institute costly patent infringement actions of dubious merit against smaller companies, usually in order to suppress competition or garner licensing fees. In an ideal world of high-quality pat- ents and optimal patent licensing and litigation, infringement suits by aggressive incumbents would have a cleansing, almost Darwinian effect. Yet, defects and distortions in patent exami- nation, licensing, and litigation—the very problems that are raised constantly in the context of patent trolls—generally apply with equal and, often, greater force to patent bullies. Nonetheless, patent bullies have scarcely been discussed in the academic literature or popular press, especially in recent years. This Article examines three patent infringement suits filed by incumbent telecommunica- tions carriers—Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T—against Vonage, then an early-stage company pro- viding consumer telephone services over the Internet. Based on a detailed analysis of the patents- at-issue, prior art, court documents, and news accounts, it shows that the incumbents were able to exploit defects in the patent system in order to prevent disruptive technologies from competing with their outmoded products and services. Because startups like Vonage typically lack the resources to vigorously defend against even weak patent suits, patent bullying can result in severe anticompetitive effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and Standards
    Patents and Standards A modern framework for IPR-based standardization FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry This study was carried out for the European Commission by and as part of the DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN 978-92-79-35991-0 DOI: 10.2769/90861 © European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. About ECSIP The European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium, ECSIP Consortium for short, is the name chosen by the team of partners, subcontractors and individual experts that have agreed to work as one team for the purpose of the Framework Contract on ‘Industrial Competitiveness and Market Performance’. The Consortium is composed of Ecorys Netherlands (lead partner), Cambridge Econometrics, CASE, CSIL, Danish Technological Institute, Decision, Eindhoven University of Technology (ECIS), Euromonitor, Fratini Vergano, Frost & Sullivan, IDEA Consult, IFO Institute, MCI and wiiw, together with a group of 28 highly-skilled and specialised individuals. ECSIP Consortium p/a ECORYS Nederland BV Watermanweg 44 3067 GG Rotterdam P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam The Netherlands T.
    [Show full text]