Commentary on 'Compulsory Licensing

• Author: Donald McFetridge
• Pages: 392-395

392

Commentary on “Compulsory Licensing”

Donald McFetridge1

Professor Hollander’s paper is thoughtful and thorough. It introduced

me to some important literature with which I was not fami liar. I am

in general agreement with Professor Hollander’s methodological ap-

proach and with his major conclusions.

Professor Hollander adopts what I would call a global-ef‌f‌iciency

approach in his analysis. is is in marked contra st to the histor-

ic Canadian approach to patent and patent licensing policy, which

viewed Canadia ns essentially as users of patented technology owned

by foreigners. is approach, as exemplif‌ied by the report of the Eco-

nomic Council of Canada on intellectual property and the report of

the Working Pa rty on Patent Law Reform, regarded compulsory li-

censing as a tool of industrial policy along with the tarif‌f and owner-

ship restrictions. It viewed compulsory licensing or the t hreat of it as

a means of increasing the bargaining power of Canadia n licensees. It

was also hostile to a variet y of licensing practices (such as tying and

bundling), which it regarded as potentially restrictive of the rights of

licensees.

e contemporary approach recognizes t hat Canadians may be

either licensors or licensees and t hat importing foreign technology

 Professor, Department of Economic s, Carleton University.