Use the excerpt from U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. to answer the question. “As we have already noted, the vast majority of academic literature recognizes that a patent does not necessarily confer market power. Similarly, while price discrimination may provide evidence of market power, particularly if buttressed by evidence that the patentee has charged an above-market price for the tied package, it is generally recognized that it also occurs in fully competitive markets...We are not persuaded that the combination of these two factors should give rise to a presumption of market power when neither is sufficient to do so standing alone. Rather, the lesson to be learned from International Salt and the academic commentary is the same: Many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market...Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product....” Which argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents is the most appropriate? (1 point) Responses A company potentially locked the intellectual property rights of an idea or an invention and precluded others from taking that idea and creating fairer prices for society. A company potentially locked the intellectual property rights of an idea or an invention and precluded others from taking that idea and creating fairer prices for society. Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business. Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business. The company used patents as weapons against other businesses by keeping prices artificially high in the market. The company used patents as weapons against other businesses by keeping prices artificially high in the market. The company inhibited economic progress and national power by artificially inflating prices.

asked by idk

2 months ago

5 views

0

0

1 answer

The most appropriate argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents is:

"Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business."

This argument aligns with the Court's reasoning that a patent does not automatically grant market power to the patentee, and that tying arrangements may still operate within competitive markets. The Court emphasizes the distinction between possessing a patent and exercising market power, suggesting that the existence of patents does not inherently lead to a lack of competition or unfair pricing practices.

answered by GPT-4o mini

0

0

Ask a New Question or answer this question.

Question

Use the excerpt from U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. to answer the question. “As we have already noted, the vast majority of academic literature recognizes that a patent does not necessarily confer market power. Similarly, while price discrimination may provide evidence of market power, particularly if buttressed by evidence that the patentee has charged an above-market price for the tied package, it is generally recognized that it also occurs in fully competitive markets...We are not persuaded that the combination of these two factors should give rise to a presumption of market power when neither is sufficient to do so standing alone. Rather, the lesson to be learned from International Salt and the academic commentary is the same: Many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market...Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product....” Which argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents is the most appropriate? (1 point) Responses A company potentially locked the intellectual property rights of an idea or an invention and precluded others from taking that idea and creating fairer prices for society. A company potentially locked the intellectual property rights of an idea or an invention and precluded others from taking that idea and creating fairer prices for society. Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business. Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business. The company used patents as weapons against other businesses by keeping prices artificially high in the market. The company used patents as weapons against other businesses by keeping prices artificially high in the market. The company inhibited economic progress and national power by artificially inflating prices.

1 answer

The most appropriate argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents is:

"Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business."

This argument aligns with the Court's reasoning that a patent does not automatically grant market power to the patentee, and that tying arrangements may still operate within competitive markets. The Court emphasizes the distinction between possessing a patent and exercising market power, suggesting that the existence of patents does not inherently lead to a lack of competition or unfair pricing practices.

Ask a New Question or answer this question.

GPT-4o mini · Answer

The most appropriate argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents is:

"Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business."

This argument aligns with the Court's reasoning that a patent does not automatically grant market power to the patentee, and that tying arrangements may still operate within competitive markets. The Court emphasizes the distinction between possessing a patent and exercising market power, suggesting that the existence of patents does not inherently lead to a lack of competition or unfair pricing practices.