IPRs are important in encouraging innovations as, in fact, IPs accord to the creators limited rights over the respective products. But they can also compulse negative effects on market competition that can prevent innovation and trigger inefficiency. Below are some potential adverse effects and policy measures to mitigate them:

Harms of IPRs to Market Competition
1. Monopoly in the Market:
SOME IPRs can lead to anti-competitive behaviors; they allow market dominators to shut out competitors, increase prices on goods and services or ration access to items that people require.

2. Patent Thickets and Trolls:
A situation where there are several patents that are similar (patent thickets) is very expensive and an innovation become very complex for new players. Another challenge that a company or business can face involves the existing patent trolls, which are people or firms that only deal Patent leasing firms can also continue to cause more lawsuits.

3. Reduced Access to Essential Technologies:
Excessive protection of IPRs can thus create an obstacle to getting to key technologies, such as necessary healthcare, including life-saving medications or clean energy that is more reliant on more widespread use.

4. Reduced Innovation Because of Overprotection:
Strong or extended protection may stifle incremental innovation because innovators avoid building on existing technologies owing to infringement or they cannot.

5. Entry Barriers :
Small startups, and firms might feel intimidated by the large enterprises given the possibility that the latter may use their IP portfolios to either gazette the market or prevent any new entrant from setting foot there.

Policy Action for Such Challenges
1. Open Innovation Models:
Support social science research and flexibility of First Sale Doctrine, combined with collaboration based platforms and systems that provide second source benefits to developers and industries as well as maintaining protection for inventors.

2. Antitrust Oversight should be Strengthened:
Supervising and eradicating IPR related anti-competitive behavior entails facilities such as bundling, licensing abuse, and dominance.

3. Patent System Reform:
Regarding software and technology – the fields where the pace of inventions is significantly higher, two aspects should be limited: patents scope and patents duration.
Patent leaders should reduce the incidence of thickets through rationalisation of the process bureaucracy so that only valid patents for inventions are granted for those innovations that cannot be easily invented by others.

4. Encourage Compulsory Licensing: In differentiated and essential technologies – for example pharmaceuticals or environmental technologies – governments may rely on compulsory licences to make such technologies more widely available while still compensating the patent holders fairly.

5. Discourage Patent Trolling:
– Make sure that patent acquisition and ownership transfer has requirements so that it can avoid being easily targeted.
Imposing penalties of bad-faith litigation over IPRs by entities.
6. Support Small Innovators and Startups:
Provide legal and financial assistance to small firms to help them manage their IP environments, to defend their own inventions, and to challenge monopolistic behaviours of larger companies.

7. Encourage Knowledge Sharing:
Offer tax credits, or other fiscal or regulatory concessions to any party involved in sharing IP on public/private partnership, research collaborations on a commercial basis and the like.

8. Balance Copyright Protections: Alter copyright law in a way that provides better frames for digital age that would guarantee that tweakers receive adequate reward while at the same time allowing fairly liberal use.

By doing this, those making policies can ensure that an environment that IPRs cultivate encourages and fosters innovation without stifering competition, accessibility, or other ‘vital’ aspects of the technological realm.