The Archives

Everything written by Mark A. Lemley on law, economics, and more

Mark A. Lemley

Mark A. Lemley is the William H. Neukom Professor at Stanford Law School and director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology. He is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and is affiliated faculty in the symbolic systems program. He teaches intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. He is the author of 11 books and 218 articles, including the two-volume treatise IP and Antitrust.

Mark is of counsel at the law firm Lex Lumina. He litigates and counsels clients in all areas of intellectual property, antitrust, and internet law. He has argued 30 federal appellate cases and numerous district court cases as well as before the California Supreme Court.  He clerked for Judge Dorothy Nelson on the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and has practiced law with Brown & Bain, Fish & Richardson, Keker & Van Nest, and Durie Tangri. He has previously taught at Berkeley Law School and the University of Texas School of Law.

Posts

The Facts Show That No License/No Chips Was A Successful Policy, Not an Empty Threat – A Reply to Manne and Auer’s New Argument

Mark A. Lemley, A. Douglas Melamed & Steve Salop Jan 22, 2020

In their original post, Manne and Auer argued that the antitrust argument against Qualcomm’s no license/no chips policy was based on bad economics and bad law. They now seem to have abandoned that argument and claim instead – contrary to the extensive factual findings of the district court – that, while Qualcomm threatened to cut off ... The Facts Show That No License/No Chips Was A Successful Policy, Not an Empty Threat – A Reply to Manne and Auer’s New Argument

AntitrustFTCPatents

Manne and Auer’s Defense of Qualcomm’s Licensing Policy Is Deeply Flawed

Mark A. Lemley, A. Douglas Melamed & Steve Salop Jan 21, 2020

Geoffrey Manne and Dirk Auer’s defense of Qualcomm’s no license/no chips policy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how that policy harms competition.  The harm is straightforward in light of facts proven at trial. In a nutshell, OEMs must buy some chips from Qualcomm or else exit the handset business, even if they would ... Manne and Auer’s Defense of Qualcomm’s Licensing Policy Is Deeply Flawed

AntitrustFTCIntellectual Property