IBM, Microsoft and Apple have each been accused of withholding
interface information. Over the years, antitrust complaints were
made against all three. But do we need a new approach? Do we need
an intellectual property law to assist interoperability?
OUT-LAW is exploring the case for a law that would force
companies to license interface information on
commercially-reasonable terms to allow interoperability.
This is not a plan to replace competition laws, which focus on a
company that abuses a dominant position. This is not replacing
reverse-engineering rights, which are qualified – and
reverse-engineering can be an inexact science. This is not a
challenge to patentability, either. If you develop an interface
that's eligible for a patent, go ahead – but license it to others
on reasonable commercial terms.
We want your view.
- You might be a software firm that was refused interface
information by another company. You might have designed an
innovative interface and feel it is your right to keep rivals
out.
- You might be an iTunes user who wants to play purchased music
on a Walkman; or you might feel that Apple has every right to keep
downloads exclusive to iPods.
What do you think of this statement: It should be
possible to force companies to license interface information on
commercially-reasonable terms to allow
interoperability.
*If you prefer, you can email your comments to our editor:
struan.robertson@out-law.com.
For avoidance of doubt, this statement does not reflect the view
of Pinsent Masons. We are simply doing some research.
