natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, as with territories, these fields of use can be allocated to the licensee under an exclusive or sole licence.
Poleg tega se lahko ta področja uporabe, kakor to velja za ozemlja, dodelijo pridobitelju licence v okviru izključne ali edine licence.
Field of use restrictions combined with an exclusive or sole licence also restrict the licensor’s ability to exploit his own technology, by preventing him from exploiting it himself, including by way of licensing to others.
Omejitve področja uporabe, združene z izključno ali edino licenco, prav tako omejujejo sposobnost dajalca licence pri izkoriščanju lastne tehnologije, tako da mu preprečujejo, da jo izkorišča sam, vključno z licenciranjem drugim.
In the case of a sole license only licensing to third parties is restricted.
V primeru edine licence je omejeno le podeljevanje licenc tretjim.
Field of use restrictions combined with exclusive and sole licences are treated in the same way as the exclusive and sole licenses dealt with in section 2.2.1 above.
Omejitve področja uporabe, združene z izključnimi ali edinimi licencami, so obravnavane na enak način kot izključne in edine licence iz podpoglavja 2.2.1 zgoraj.
In particular, for licensing between competitors, this means that reciprocal exclusive licensing is hardcore under Article 4(1)(c).
Za podeljevanje licenc med konkurenti to zlasti pomeni, da se vzajemno podeljevanje izključnih licenc šteje za nedopustno omejitev v skladu s členom 4(1)(c).
Field of use restrictions may have pro-competitive effects by encouraging the licensor to license his technology for applications that fall outside his main area of focus.
Omejitve področja uporabe imajo lahko učinke, ki so pozitivni za konkurenco, tako da dajalca licence spodbujajo k licenciranju njegove tehnologije za načine uporabe, ki ne sodijo v njegovo poglavitno področje delovanja.
If the licensor could not prevent licensees from operating in fields where he exploits the technology himself or in fields where the value of the technology is not yet well established, it would be likely to create a disincentive for the licensor to license or would lead him to charge a higher royalty.
Če dajalec licence pridobiteljem licenc ne bi mogel preprečiti, da delujejo na področjih, na katerih sam izkorišča tehnologijo, ali na področjih, na katerih tehnologija še ni uveljavljena, dajalec licence verjetno ne bi imel spodbude za licenciranje ali bi bil spodbujen k določanju višjih licenčnin.
It must also be taken into account that in certain sectors licensing often occurs to ensure design freedom by preventing infringement claims.
Prav tako je treba upoštevati, da se v nekaterih sektorjih podeljevanje licenc pogosto pojavlja, da se zagotovi svoboda oblikovanja s preprečevanjem tožb zaradi kršitve pravic.
Within the scope of the licence the licensee is able to develop his own technology without fearing infringement claims by the licensor.
V okviru področja uporabe licence lahko pridobitelj licence razvije svojo lastno tehnologijo, ne da bi bil izpostavljen tveganju, da bo dajalec licence vložil tožbo zaradi kršitve pravic.
Field of use restrictions on licensees in agreements between actual or potential competitors are block exempted up to the market share threshold of 20 %.
Omejitve področja uporabe, naložene pridobiteljem licenc v okviru sporazumov med dejanskimi ali potencialnimi konkurenti, so predmet skupinske izjeme do 20-odstotnega praga tržnega deleža.
The main competitive concern in the case of such restrictions is the risk that the licensee ceases to be a competitive force outside the licensed field of use.
V primeru takšnih omejitev je poglavitna nevarnost za konkurenco tveganje, da pridobitelj licence preneha biti konkurenčna sila zunaj licenčnega področja uporabe.
This risk is greater in the case of cross licensing between competitors where the agreement provides for asymmetrical field of use restrictions.
Tveganje je večje v primeru navzkrižnega licenciranja med konkurenti, če so v sporazumu določene asimetrične omejitve področja uporabe.
A field of use restriction is asymmetrical where one party is permitted to use the licensed technology within one product market or technical field of use and the other party is permitted to use the other licensed technology within another product market or technical field of use.
Omejitev področja uporabe je asimetrična, če je eni stranki dovoljena uporaba licenčne tehnologije v okviru enega proizvodnega trga ali tehničnega področja uporabe, drugi stranki pa je dovoljena uporaba druge licenčne tehnologije v okviru drugega proizvodnega trga ali tehničnega področja uporabe.
Competition concerns may in particular arise where the licensee’s production facility, which is tooled up to use the licensed technology, is also used to produce with his own technology products outside the licensed field of use.
Nevarnost za konkurenco se lahko zlasti pojavi, če se proizvodni obrat pridobitelja licence, ki je opremljen z namenom uporabe licenčne tehnologije, uporablja tudi za proizvodnjo izdelkov z uporabo njegove lastne tehnologije zunaj licenčnega področja uporabe.
If the agreement is likely to lead the licensee to reduce output outside the licensed field of use, the agreement is likely to be caught by Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Če je verjetno, da bo sporazum privedel pridobitelja licence k zmanjšanju obsega proizvodnje zunaj licenčnega področja uporabe, obstaja verjetnost, da bo sporazum zajet v členu 53(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Symmetrical field of use restrictions, i.e. agreements whereby the parties are licensed to use each other’s technologies within the same field(s) of use, are unlikely to be caught by Article 53(1).
Ni verjetno, da bi bile simetrične omejitve področja uporabe, tj. sporazumi, s katerimi se strankam podelijo licence za medsebojno uporabo tehnologij v okviru istega(-ih) področja(-ij) uporabe, zajete v členu 53(1).
Such agreements are unlikely to restrict competition that existed in the absence of the agreement.
Takšni sporazumi verjetno ne bodo omejevali konkurence, ki bi obstajala v primeru odsotnosti sporazuma.
Article 53(1) is also unlikely to apply in the case of agreements that merely enable the licensee to develop and exploit his own technology within the scope of the licence without fearing infringement claims by the licensor.
Prav tako ni verjetno, da bi se člen 53(1) uporabljal v primeru sporazumov, ki pridobitelju licence omogočajo le razvijanje in izkoriščanje njegove lastne tehnologije v okviru področja uporabe licence, ne da bi bil izpostavljen tveganju, da bo dajalec licence vložil tožbo zaradi kršitve pravic.
In such circumstances field of use restrictions do not in themselves restrict competition that existed in the absence of the agreement.
V takšnih okoliščinah omejitve področja uporabe same po sebi ne omejujejo konkurence, ki je obstajala v odsotnosti sporazuma.
In the absence of the agreement the licensee also risked infringement claims outside the scope of the licensed field of use.
V odsotnosti sporazuma je pridobitelj licence prav tako tvegal tožbe zaradi kršitve pravic zunaj licenčnega področja uporabe.
However, if the licensee without business justification terminates or scales back his activities in the area outside the licensed field of use this may be an indication of an underlying market sharing arrangement amounting to a hardcore restriction under Article 4(1)(c) of the TTBER.
Če pa pridobitelj licence brez poslovne utemeljitve preneha ali zmanjša svoje dejavnosti na območju zunaj licenčnega področja uporabe, lahko to pomeni, da osnovni dogovor o delitvi trgov ustreza nedopustni omejitvi v skladu s členom 4(1)(c) TTBER.
Field of use restrictions on licensee and licensor in agreements between non-competitors are block exempted up to the market share threshold of 30 %.
Omejitve področja uporabe, naložene pridobitelju licence in dajalcu licence v okviru sporazumov med nekonkurenti, so predmet skupinske izjeme do 30-odstotnega praga tržnega deleža.
Field of use restrictions in agreements between non-competitors whereby the licensor reserves one or more product markets or technical fields of use for himself are generally either non-restrictive of competition or efficiency enhancing.
Omejitve področja uporabe v okviru sporazumov med nekonkurenti, pri katerih dajalec licence en ali več proizvodnih trgov ali tehničnih področij uporabe pridrži zase, običajno bodisi ne omejujejo konkurence ali pa povečujejo učinkovitost.
They promote dissemination of new technology by giving the licensor an incentive to license for exploitation in fields in which he does not want to exploit the technology himself.
Takšne omejitve pospešujejo razširjanje nove tehnologije, s tem da dajalca licence spodbujajo k podeljevanju licenc za izkoriščanje na področjih, na katerih sam ne želi izkoriščati tehnologije.
If the licensor could not prevent licensees from operating in fields where the licensor exploits the technology himself, it would be likely to create a disincentive for the licensor to licence.
Če dajalec licence pridobiteljem licenc ne bi mogel preprečiti opravljanja dejavnosti na področjih, na katerih sam izkorišča tehnologijo, bi ga to verjetno odvračalo od podeljevanja licenc.
In agreements between non-competitors the licensor is normally also entitled to grant sole or exclusive licences to different licensees limited to one or more fields of use.
V sporazumih med nekonkurenti ima dajalec licence običajno tudi pravico, da različnim pridobiteljem licenc podeljuje edine ali izključne licence, omejene na eno področje uporabe ali več področij uporabe.
Such restrictions limit intra-technology competition between licensees in the same way as exclusive licensing and are analysed in the same way (cf. section 2.2.1 above).
Takšne omejitve omejujejo konkurenco med pridobitelji licenc znotraj tehnologij na enak način kot izključne licence, pa tudi njihova obravnava se izvaja na enak način (glej podpoglavje 2.2.1 zgoraj).
Captive use restrictions
Omejitve v zvezi z lastno uporabo
A captive use restriction can be defined as an obligation on the licensee to limit his production of the licensed product to the quantities required for the production of his own products and for the maintenance and repair of his own products.
Omejitev v zvezi z lastno uporabo se lahko opredeli kot obveznost za pridobitelja licence, da omeji svojo proizvodnjo licenčnega izdelka na količine, potrebne za proizvodnjo svojih lastnih izdelkov ter vzdrževanje in popravilo svojih lastnih izdelkov.
In other words, this type of use restriction takes the form of an obligation on the licensee to use the products incorporating the licensed technology only as an input for incorporation into his own production; it does not cover the sale of the licensed product for incorporation into the products of other producers.
Drugače povedano se ta vrsta omejitve uporabe pojavlja v obliki obveznosti, naložene pridobitelju licence, da izdelke, ki vključujejo licenčno tehnologijo, uporablja zgolj kot proizvodni dejavnik za vgradnjo v svojo lastno proizvodnjo; ne vključuje prodaje licenčnega izdelka za vgradnjo v izdelke drugih proizvajalcev.
Captive use restrictions are block exempted up to the respective market share thresholds of 20 % and 30 %.
Omejitve v zvezi z lastno uporabo so predmet skupinske izjeme do 20-odstotnega oziroma 30-odstotnega praga tržnega deleža.
Outside the scope of the block exemption it is necessary to examine what are the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of the restraint.
Zunaj področja uporabe skupinske izjeme je treba pri omejitvi proučiti učinke, ki konkurenco spodbujajo, in učinke, ki konkurenco omejujejo.
In this respect it is necessary to distinguish agreements between competitors from agreements between non-competitors.
V zvezi s tem je treba sporazume med konkurenti razlikovati od sporazumov med nekonkurenti.
In the case of licence agreements between competitors a restriction that imposes on the licensee to produce under the licence only for incorporation into his own products prevents him from being a supplier of components to third party producers.
V primeru licenčnih sporazumov med konkurenti omejitev, v skladu s katero mora pridobitelj licence v okviru licence proizvajati le za namene vgradnje v svoje lastne izdelke, pridobitelju licence preprečuje dobavljati sestavne dele tretjim proizvajalcem.
If prior to the conclusion of the agreement, the licensee was not an actual or likely potential supplier of components to other producers, the captive use restriction does not change anything compared to the pre-existing situation.
Če pred sklenitvijo sporazuma pridobitelj licence ni bil dejanski ali potencialni dobavitelj sestavnih delov drugim proizvajalcem, omejitev v zvezi z lastno uporabo ne spremeni ničesar v primerjavi s predhodno obstoječimi okoliščinami.
In those circumstances the restriction is assessed in the same way as in the case of agreements between non-competitors.
V takih okoliščinah se omejitev presodi na enak način kot v primeru sporazumov med nekonkurenti.
If, on the other hand, the licensee is an actual or likely component supplier, it is necessary to examine what is the impact of the agreement on this activity.
Če je po drugi strani pridobitelj licence dejanski ali potencialni dobavitelj sestavnih delov, je treba proučiti vpliv sporazuma na to dejavnost.
If by tooling up to use the licensor’s technology the licensee ceases to use his own technology on a stand-alone basis and thus to be a component supplier, the agreement restricts competition that existed prior to the agreement.
Če pridobitelj licence, s tem ko se opremi z namenom uporabe tehnologije dajalca licence, preneha samostojno uporabljati svojo lastno tehnologijo in torej ni več dobavitelj sestavnih delov, sporazum omejuje konkurenco, ki je obstajala pred sklenitvijo sporazuma.
It may result in serious negative market effects when the licensor has a significant degree of market power on the component market.
To lahko povzroči resne negativne učinke na trg, če ima dajalec licence znatno stopnjo tržne moči na trgu sestavnih delov.
In the case of licence agreements between non-competitors there are two main competitive risks stemming from captive use restrictions: (a) a restriction of intra-technology competition on the market for the supply of inputs and (b) an exclusion of arbitrage between licensees enhancing the possibility for the licensor to impose discriminatory royalties on licensees.
V primeru licenčnih sporazumov med nekonkurenti lahko omejitve v zvezi z lastno uporabo povzročijo dve poglavitni tveganji za konkurenco: (a) omejitev konkurence znotraj tehnologij na trgu za dobavo proizvodnih dejavnikov in (b) izključitev arbitraže med pridobitelji licenc, ki dajalcu licence daje večjo možnost, da pridobiteljem licenc nalaga diskriminacijske licenčnine.
Captive use restrictions, however, may also promote pro-competitive licensing.
Omejitve v zvezi z lastno uporabo pa lahko prav tako spodbujajo licenciranje, ki je za konkurenco pozitivno.
If the licensor is a supplier of components, the restraint may be necessary in order for the dissemination of technology between non-competitors to occur.
Če je dajalec licence dobavitelj sestavnih delov, je lahko omejitev potrebna, da se pojavi razširjanje tehnologije med nekonkurenti.
In the absence of the restraint the licensor may not grant the licence or may do so only against higher royalties, because otherwise he would create direct competition to himself on the component market.
Če omejitve ni, se lahko zgodi, da dajalec licence ne podeli licence ali to stori proti plačilu višjih licenčnin, ker bi v nasprotnem primeru samemu sebi povzročil neposredno konkurenco na trgu sestavnih delov.
In such cases a captive use restriction is normally either not restrictive of competition or covered by Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement.
V takšnih primerih omejitev v zvezi z lastno uporabo običajno bodisi ne omejuje konkurence ali pa je zajeta v členu 53(3) Sporazuma EGP.
It is a condition, however, that the licensee is not restricted in selling the licensed product as replacement parts for his own products.
Pogoj pa je, da pridobitelj licence ni omejen pri prodaji licenčnih izdelkov kot nadomestnih delov za svoje lastne izdelke.
The licensee must be able to serve the after market for his own products, including independent service organisations that service and repair the products produced by him.
Pridobitelj licence mora biti sposoben nuditi poprodajne storitve za svoje lastne izdelke, tudi prek neodvisnih storitvenih podjetij za vzdrževanje in popravilo njegovih izdelkov.
Where the licensor is not a component supplier on the relevant market, the above reason for imposing captive use restrictions does not apply.
Če dajalec licence ni dobavitelj sestavnih delov na upoštevnem trgu, zgoraj navedeni razlog za omejitve v zvezi z lastno uporabo ne velja.
In such cases a captive use restriction may in principle promote the dissemination of technology by ensuring that licensees do not sell to producers that compete with the licensor on other markets.
V takšnih primerih lahko omejitev v zvezi z lastno uporabo načeloma spodbudi razširjanje tehnologije, tako da zagotovi, da pridobitelji licenc ne prodajajo proizvajalcem, ki konkurirajo z dajalcem licence na drugih trgih.
However, a restriction on the licensee not to sell into certain customer groups reserved for the licensor normally constitutes a less restrictive alternative.
Vendar pa omejitev, naložena pridobitelju licence, da ne prodaja nekaterim skupinam kupcev, ki so rezervirane za dajalca licence, običajno pomeni manj omejevalno alternativo.
Consequently, in such cases a captive use restriction is normally not necessary for the dissemination of technology to take place.
Zato v takšnih primerih omejitev v zvezi z lastno uporabo praviloma ni potrebna za namene razširjanja tehnologije.
Tying and bundling
Vezanje licenc in licenčni paketi
In the context of technology licensing tying occurs when the licensor makes the licensing of one technology (the tying product) conditional upon the licensee taking a licence for another technology or purchasing a product from the licensor or someone designated by him (the tied product).
Na področju tehnoloških licenc se vezanje licenc pojavi, če dajalec licence pogoji podelitev licence za določeno tehnologijo (zavezujoči izdelek) s tem, da pridobitelj licence pridobi licenco tudi za drugo tehnologijo ali od dajalca licence oziroma osebe, ki jo je slednji pooblastil, kupi izdelek (vezani izdelek).
Bundling occurs where two technologies or a technology and a product are only sold together as a bundle.
Za licenčni paket se šteje, če se dve tehnologiji ali ena tehnologija in en izdelek prodajata le v paketu.
In both cases, however, it is a condition that the products and technologies involved are distinct in the sense that there is distinct demand for each of the products and technologies forming part of the tie or the bundle.
V obeh primerih pa je pogoj, da so zadevni izdelki in tehnologije ločeni v smislu, da po vsakem izdelku oziroma vsaki tehnologiji, ki je del vezave ali paketa, obstaja ločeno povpraševanje.
This is normally not the case where the technologies or products are by necessity linked in such a way that the licensed technology cannot be exploited without the tied product or both parts of the bundle cannot be exploited without the other.
To običajno ne velja, če so tehnologije ali izdelki nujno povezani na način, da se licenčna tehnologija ne more izkoriščati brez vezanega izdelka ali se en del paketa ne more izkoriščati brez drugega dela.
In the following the term “tying” refers to both tying and bundling.
V nadaljevanju se izraz ‚vezanje licenc‘ nanaša na vezanje licenc, pa tudi na licenčne pakete.
Article 3 of the TTBER, which limits the application of the block exemption by market share thresholds, ensures that tying and bundling are not block exempted above the market share thresholds of 20 % in the case of agreements between competitors and 30 % in the case of agreements between non-competitors.
Člen 3 TTBER, ki s pragovi tržnih deležev omejuje uporabo skupinske izjeme, zagotavlja, da vezanje licenc in licenčni paketi niso predmet skupinske izjeme, če je presežen 20-odstotni prag tržnega deleža v primeru sporazumov med konkurenti in 30-odstotni prag tržnega deleža v primeru sporazumov med nekonkurenti.
The market share thresholds apply to any relevant technology or product market affected by the licence agreement, including the market for the tied product.
Pragovi tržnih deležev se uporabljajo za vse upoštevne tehnološke ali proizvodne trge, ki so predmet licenčnega sporazuma, vključno s trgom za vezani izdelek.
Above the market share thresholds it is necessary to balance the anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects of tying.
Pri preseženih pragovih tržnih deležev je treba uravnovesiti učinke vezanja licenc, ki konkurenco omejujejo, in učinke, ki konkurenco spodbujajo.
The main restrictive effect of tying is foreclosure of competing suppliers of the tied product.
Poglavitni omejevalni učinek vezanja licenc je omejevanje dostopa konkurenčnim dobaviteljem vezanega izdelka na trg.
Tying may also allow the licensor to maintain market power in the market for the tying product by raising barriers to entry since it may force new entrants to enter several markets at the same time.
Prav tako lahko vezanje licenc dajalcu licence omogoči, da na trgu zavezujočega izdelka ohrani tržno moč, s tem da poveča vstopne ovire, saj lahko slednje nove konkurente prisilijo, da istočasno vstopijo na več trgov.
Moreover, tying may allow the licensor to increase royalties, in particular when the tying product and the tied product are partly substitutable and the two products are not used in fixed proportion.
Poleg tega lahko vezanje licenc dajalcu licence omogoči, da poviša licenčnine, zlasti če sta zavezujoči izdelek in vezani izdelek delno nadomestljiva in se ne uporabljata v določenem razmerju.
Tying prevents the licensee from switching to substitute inputs in the face of increased royalties for the tying product.
Vezanje licenc pridobitelju licence preprečuje, da preide na nadomestne proizvodne dejavnike v primeru povišanih licenčnin za zavezujoči izdelek.
These competition concerns are independent of whether the parties to the agreement are competitors or not.
Te težave v zvezi s konkurenco niso odvisne od dejstva, ali so stranke sporazuma konkurenti ali ne.
For tying to produce likely anti-competitive effects the licensor must have a significant degree of market power in the tying product so as to restrict competition in the tied product.
Da ima lahko vezanje licenc protikonkurenčne učinke, mora dajalec licence imeti znatno stopnjo tržne moči na trgu zavezujočega izdelka, tako da lahko omeji konkurenco na trgu vezanega izdelka.
In the absence of market power in the tying product the licensor cannot use his technology for the anti-competitive purpose of foreclosing suppliers of the tied product.
Če ni tržne moči na trgu zavezujočega izdelka, dajalec licence ne more uporabljati svoje tehnologije za protikonkurenčni namen zapiranja trga dobaviteljem vezanega izdelka.
Furthermore, as in the case of non-compete obligations, the tie must cover a certain proportion of the market for the tied product for appreciable foreclosure effects to occur.
Poleg tega mora vezava – tako kot v primeru obveznosti nekonkurence – zato da se pojavijo znatni učinki preprečevanja dostopa na trg, zajemati določen delež trga vezanega izdelka.
In cases where the licensor has market power on the market for the tied product rather than on the market for the tying product, the restraint is analysed as non-compete or quantity forcing, reflecting the fact that any competition problem has its origin on the market for the “tied” product and not on the market for the “tying” product [66].
V primerih, ko ima dajalec licence večjo tržno moč na trgu vezanega izdelka in ne na trgu zavezujočega izdelka, se omejitev šteje kot obveznost nekonkurence ali kot količinska obveznost, kar kaže na dejstvo, da imajo vse težave v zvezi s konkurenco svoj izvor na trgu ‚vezanega‘ izdelka, ne pa na trgu ‚zavezujočega‘ izdelka [66].
Tying can also give rise to efficiency gains.
Vezanje licenc lahko prav tako povzroči povečane učinkovitosti.