The General Court of the European Union recently confirmed, Regardless of intellectual property considerations, Agreements between market operators to geo-block the activation keys of online platforms may violate EU competition law.

Eu competition law generally prohibits agreements between independent market operators that are intended or in fact restrict competition. Eu antitrust law allows only limited exceptions to this general rule, And the ban applies to both horizontal and vertical agreements.

Horizontal agreements are agreements between actual or potential competitors at the same level of the supply chain, Vertical agreements refer to agreements reached between enterprises operating at different levels, Such as agreements between manufacturers and their distributors. The European Commission works with national competition authorities to ensure that operators in the EU internal market comply with these competition rules.

European CommissionSteamPlatform operatorValveThe company and five game publishers launched an investigation into anti-competitive practices. The conduct involved agreements reached by these operators. These agreements are intended to limit certainSteamCross-border sales of video games, That is, prevent distributors from responding located in certain EEA (EEA) Requests from distributors or users outside the country.

These restrictions are imposed by geographical blockadeSteamThe key is implemented in a manner, It is designed to prevent users located outside the designated countries from activating related video games.

The committee came to a conclusion, The deal violates EU competition law, Because by agreeing to this geographical blockade, The operator illegally restricted the connection withSteamPlatform compatible with somePCCross-border sales of video games. ValveThe company filed a complaint with the General Court of the European Union, Ask for the ruling to be quashed.

The General Court of the European Union cited previous jurisprudence on the issue, Eu competition rules cover all types of agreements, Horizontal and vertical protocols, Some agreements distort competition in the EU's internal market. Regardless of the market in which the parties operate, As long as the business conduct of one of the parties is affected by the terms of the arrangement, That's enough to find an antitrust violation.

ValveThe company asked the court to deny that it violated competition rules, The reason is that it does not act as a cartel among other businesses active in another market "facilitator" The role of, But the court dismissed the claim.

ValveThe company tried to argue, The committee did not take copyright into account in its decision. The company claims, Technical measure, Such as pairSteamKey area blocking, It's the European Union "Copyright directive" Expressly authorized, Cannot be classified as restricting competition. therefore, Game publishers have every right to use territorial controls, Prevent itSteamVideo games inEEAUnauthorized dissemination to the public in some areas.

Court confirmation, The mere fact that the agreement deals with intellectual property does not preclude the application of EU competition rules. The court notes, The Commission did not limit in its decision what the publisher authorized to the distributor to certainEEAThe permission of the state territory raises any doubt.

Here's what's not legal, The act involvedValveAdditional measures taken by the company and each publisher, These measures are aimed at making video games involved in certainEEAAny sale or any use outside the country becomes impossible, Thus ensuring compliance with these territorial restrictions.

Court confirmation, Notwithstanding grant of license (Inclusive of exclusive license) Does not violate EU competition law, However, additional measures designed to ensure compliance with these permitted geographical limits may be considered anti-competitive and illegal.

The General Court of the European Union concluded after analyzing the current facts, Geographic restrictions imposed by operators are designed to prevent video games sold at low prices in some countries from being bought by distributors or users located in other countries, Prices are much higher in those countries. therefore, The purpose of geographical blockade is not protectionPCCopyright of video game publishers, It's about eliminating parallel imports of these video games, Protect publishers from high royalties orValveProfit earned.

The court emphasized, The purpose of copyright is simply to ensure that the rights of the relevant rights holders are protected, Including getting paid through licensing. however, This does not guarantee that they will have the opportunity to demand the highest possible remuneration, Nor is there any guarantee that they will have the opportunity to engage in conduct that leads to artificial price differentials between segmented national markets. This fragmentation and the artificial price differentials it creates are antithetical to the EU's internal market policy.

Harmonizing the rights of different EU laws is not an easy task. In spite of this, As indicated by the above judgment, Intellectual property cannot be used as a means of circumventing competition law, Objectives of competition law, In particular, ensuring the right of EU citizens to benefit from the internal market, It should be guaranteed at all times. (Be compiled fromtimesofmalta. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.