Embed Notice

@xianc78 True, though I'd still argue that this isn't the equivalent and the copyright owner still maintains and even more so today a monopoly on distribution which is a detriment of ones (or the population as a whole) interests and wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else. Could you imagine if CVS could dictate that Walgreens not open up across the street? CVS should not have a monopoly on building in town x, nor should copyright holders have a monopoly distribution.

In other related areas such as patents and general purpose technologies companies are often obliged to license their patents under RAND terms (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory). Basically anyone can license the patents for use in their products mitigating some of the danger of what is otherwise a monopoly too.

The obligation arises voluntarily when a company participates in a standard-setting organization (SSO) and agrees to the SSO's intellectual property rights (IPR) policy, which typically includes a RAND or FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing commitment for any patents that become essential to the adopted standard.

This voluntary agreement creates a legally binding contract between the patent holder and the SSO. Crucially, U.S. courts have recognized that companies implementing the standard (e.g., manufacturers) are third-party beneficiaries of this contract. This means an implementer can sue the patent holder for breach of the RAND commitment if the terms offered are not reasonable or non-discriminatory.