Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05TAIPEI1217, US/TAIWAN HOLD FIRST ANTI-TRUST WORKING GROUP

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05TAIPEI1217.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05TAIPEI1217 2005-03-22 07:35 2011-08-23 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 001217 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/RSP/TC, STATE PASS AIT/W 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON KIPR TW IPR
SUBJECT: US/TAIWAN HOLD FIRST ANTI-TRUST WORKING GROUP 
MEETING 
 
1.  Summary:  Representatives from the US Department of 
Justice and Fair Trade Commission and representatives from 
the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission held a Digital Video 
Conference (DVC) March 16.  This was the first meeting under 
the auspices of the U.S./Taiwan Anti-trust Working Group. 
The TFTC presented a short discussion of patent pooling in 
Taiwan and then outlined their decision making process in a 
recent case.  USDOJ and FTC introduced the U.S. business 
review and advisory opinion process then discussed U.S. 
procedures in a U.S. patent pooling case.  In addition to the 
first meeting of the Anti-trust Working Group, this was 
TFTC's first DVC.  TFTC representatives were very pleased 
with the discussion, wished the DVC could have been extended 
and are eagerly anticipating the next working group meeting. 
End Summary. 
 
2.  The first meeting of the US/Taiwan Anti-trust working 
group was via DVC on the morning of March 16 Taipei time. 
USDOJ Stuart Chemtob led the U.S. delegation, accompanied by 
USDOJ Special Counsel for Intellectual Property Frances 
Marshall, Attorneys Hill Wellford and Jennifer Dixton, and 
Economist Suzanne Majewski, FTC Associate Director Alden 
Abbott and Asia-Pacific Counsel Deirdre Shanahan.  US Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim also attended 
briefly.  The Taiwan FTC delegation was headed by Deputy 
Chairman Shin Chih-jeng, accompanied by several members of 
his staff. 
 
Discussing Patent Pooling Guidelines 
==================================== 
 
3.  Introductions were followed by a TFTC presentation on 
patent pooling regulations in Taiwan.  Patent pools are 
created by rightsholders as a means of simplifying licensing 
procedures for manufacturers who would like to use the 
patented technology.  Relevant patents are included in a 
"pool", the licensee then pays a royalty fee to license all 
patents in the pool, rather than negotiating separate 
agreements for each patent.  TFTC's staff, Ms. Chen Ying-ju 
discussed the TFTC's methodology for determining whether 
patent pools were anti-competitive.  Taiwan has published 
guidelines based on international and domestic case law to 
determine how to handle patent pooling cases.  These 
guidelines include eleven examples of permissible patent 
pools and direct investigators to consider reasonableness of 
the pool, the market power of the licensor, the relative 
market position of the parties, whether the patents are 
substitutable or complimentary, and whether the arrangement 
will discourage innovation. 
 
4.  The TFTC then introduced its first patent pool case, 
decided in 2004.  Philips, Sony, and Taiyo Yuden created a 
patent pool for CD-Recordable (CD-R) production.  Taiwan has 
a large CD-R manufacturing industry that licenses technology 
from the patent pool administered by Philips.  In 1999, the 
Taiwan CD-R industry brought a case to the TFTC alleging that 
Philips had set the royalty rate too high, refused to 
negotiate a lower rate, and required licensees to provide 
confidential and irrelevant business data as a requirement of 
 
SIPDIS 
licensing.  After a lengthy investigation, the TFTC found in 
2004 that Philips was in violation of Taiwan's anti-trust law 
and authorized compulsory licensing of CD-R patents.  The 
TFTC based its decision on several factors, including 
Philips' unwillingness to adjust the royalty fee, the 
inability of licensees to choose substitutes, and an improper 
agreement between the patent-holders to set prices, share 
royalties and not compete.  The TFTC also found that some of 
the patents in the pool were irrelevant or substitutable, not 
complementary patents. 
 
5.  USDOJ officials, questions focused on how the TFTC 
determined that the patent pool was anti-competitive, 
including a discussion of the differences between US and 
Taiwan procedures for gauging anti-competitive behavior. 
Rather than looking at price or lack of competition, the 
USDOJ directs its attention to whether patents included in 
the pool are substitutable or complementary.  Pooling 
complementary patents can encourage greater competition and 
lower prices for consumers by eliminating inefficiencies and 
lowering transaction costs.  The USDOJ does not believe that 
inclusion of substitutable patents in a pool automatically 
makes it anti-competitive, but such pools invite closer 
scrutiny to determine whether innovation is suppressed.  The 
TFTC representatives agreed that further discussions of how 
to define complementality and substitutability would be 
useful.  The USDOJ was interested to see TFTC's evidence 
pertaining to the royalty sharing agreement, noting that the 
US has not investigated this type of case and could benefit 
from Taiwan's experience. 
 
USDOJ Offers Experience in Business Reviews 
=========================================== 
 
6.  The USDOJ/USFTC presentation discussed their business 
review and advisory opinion processes.  Companies can apply 
to the DOJ in advance of any action to ask for a review of 
their proposed conduct.  DOJ will then analyze the proposal 
and recommend changes if needed, to ensure the planned course 
of action does not violate the law.  DOJ noted that even if 
the company does not follow DOJ recommendations, there is 
still no presumption of anti-competitive behavior.  The FTC 
advisory opinion is similar in that it applies only to 
prospective actions.  There are two types of advisory 
opinions.  Commission-issued opinions are agreed upon by the 
whole commission and are legally binding.  Staff-issued 
opinions are not legally binding, however, there has never 
been a case where a staff opinion was overruled. 
7.  The FTC then introduced its experience in a patent pool 
case.  In the Visix-Summit case, two competing laser surgical 
equipment manufacturers pooled their patents and set a fixed 
price for all licensees.  Visix and Summit argued that their 
patents were complementary, but the FTC found they were 
substitutable and the pool artificially increased prices and 
restricted innovation.  In this case, the FTC employed 
independent experts to help determine whether the patents in 
the pool were technically essential and whether there were 
feasible alternatives.  In response to TFTC questions about 
whether the high fixed royalty rate influenced the decision, 
the FTC argued that the royalty rate should not be a 
determining factor, rather it is the availability of 
substitutes that should control the decision.  The FTC noted 
that setting standards and royalty fees often seek a 
"reasonable and non-discriminatory" standard, but it is 
impossible to project what will be considered reasonable as 
technology develops and matures. 
 
Positive Reactions, Looking for Future Meetings 
============================================= == 
 
8.  In a brief closing, both the USDOJ and TFTC expressed 
their satisfaction with the exchange of views and professed a 
clearer understanding of the factors considered by their 
counterparts in determining what comprises anti-competitive 
practice.  During the post-meeting wrap-up, TFTC officials 
told AIT/T that they very pleased with the discussion, would 
have liked the opportunity to extend the discussion beyond 
the two hour time frame and hope next time to include more 
TFTC staff.  Attendees noted that the Philips case was 
controversial, even within the TFTC, and were appreciative of 
the opportunity to hear the views of US experts about key 
aspects of the case.  The TFTC officials hoped the next 
meeting of the working group could be scheduled as soon as 
possible, and suggested further discussions about patent 
pooling might be useful. 
PAAL