The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

Antiepileptic drugs and pregnancy. Population based pharmaco-epidemiological study on prescription patterns, pregnancy outcome and foetal health

Aims of the study: To assess the prevalence of Antiepileptic Drug (AED) exposure in pregnant women with or without epilepsy and the comparative risk of terminations of pregnancy (TOPs), spontaneous abortions, stillbirth, major congenital malformations (MCMs) and foetal growth retardation (FGR) following intrauterine AED exposure in the Emilia Romagna region (RER), Northern Italy (4 million inhabitants). Methods: Data were obtained from official regional registries: Certificate of Delivery Assistance, Hospital Discharge Card, reimbursed prescription databases and Registry of Congenital Malformations. We identified all the deliveries, hospitalized abortions and MCMs occurred between January 2009 and December 2011. Results: We identified 145,243 pregnancies: 111,284 deliveries (112,845 live births and 279 stillbirths), 16408 spontaneous abortions and 17551 TOPs. Six hundred and eleven pregnancies (0.42% 95% Cl: 0.39-0.46) were exposed to AEDs. Twenty-one per cent of pregnancies ended in TOP in the AED group vs 12% in the non-exposed (OR:2.24; CI 1.41-3.56). The rate of spontaneous abortions and stillbirth was comparable in the two groups. Three hundred fifty-three babies (0.31%, 95% CI: 0.28-0.35) were exposed to AEDs during the first trimester. The rate of MCMs was 2.3% in the AED group (2.2% in babies exposed to monotherapy and 3.1% in babies exposed to polytherapy) vs 2.0% in the non-exposed. The risk of FGR was 12.7 % in the exposed group compared to 10% in the non-exposed. Discussion and Conclusion: The prevalence of AED exposure in pregnancy in the RER was 0.42%. The rate of MCMs in children exposed to AEDs in utero was almost superimposable to the one of the non-exposed, however polytherapy carried a slightly increased risk . The rate of TOPs was significantly higher in the exposed women. Further studies are needed to clarify whether this high rate reflects a higher rate of MCMs detected prenatally or other more elusive reasons.