本文以美國、歐盟（兼及德國）、日本、韓國及臺灣法制為主， 比較研究各國日益以經濟取向看待智慧財產權與競爭法之法律實 務，並且歸納出其共同的特徵：認知智慧財產權法的經濟性、設置介入干預的門檻（安全港）以及論理（合理）原則取代當然（合法／非 法）原則。本文接著研究上述法制之競爭法如何處遇在專利落實與新 技術開發運用上日趨重要的專利庫授權條款，並整理出其彼此間最 大差異點之所在（僅美國沒有「具有市場支配地位之專利庫濫用其支 配地位」的問題），並探討應如何看待或調和此種差異。專利庫授權 條款一旦被認定違反競爭法，將對基於智慧財產權法的禁制令以及專 利授權約款之效力有何影響，是本文關心的第三個主題。本文在結論 部分提出三點值得進一步研究的議題：專利庫應對競爭法主管機關透 明、涵蓋全部智慧財產權的授權約款單一準則有其必要性，以及經濟 取向應該以何種效益為依歸。

ABSTRACT This paper traces the growing acceptance of the more economic approach to IPR and competition law in state practices, and summarizes its characteristics. It then compares how five jurisdictions weigh the IPR licensing agreements against competition law in the context of patent pools, which have become critically effective mechanism for both patent enforcement and the deployment of new technology. It further analyzes the major difference found, namely the abuse of a dominant position by patent pools, and how to look at this difference and even how to harmonize it. It then moves on to study the impact of antitrust violation by patent pools on the cease-and-decease request based on IPR and on the licensing agreements. The concluding section brings forward three points worthy of further attention: the transparency of patent pools toward competition authorities, the need of maintaining comprehensive guidelines on IPR licensing agreements, and the effects that the more economic approach should pursue.