Symposium
Last updated on Feb 10, 2020
FTC v. Qualcomm: Analyzing the theory of the case
In an ongoing series of posts by both regular bloggers and guests, Truth on the Market offers analysis of the FTC v. Qualcomm antitrust case.
On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. Both prior to her decision and after it, TOTM bloggers and guests have analyzed the FTC’s theory of the case and offered their thoughts regarding related matters including the sufficiency of the evidence and the economic implications of the case and its underlying theory. As the decision is appealed to the Ninth Circuit (beginning with Qualcomm’s motion to stay the judgment pending appeal), we anticipate offering continued analysis.
In This Symposium
FTC v. Qualcomm: Innovation and Competition
[TOTM: The following is the first in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the FTC v. Qualcomm case, currently awaiting decision by Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. The entire series of posts is available here. This post originally appeared on the Federalist Society Blog.] Just days before leaving office, ... FTC v. Qualcomm: Innovation and Competition
Calling into Question the FTC’s Theory of the Case in FTC v. Qualcomm
[TOTM: The following is the second in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the FTC v. Qualcomm case, currently awaiting decision by Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. The entire series of posts is available here. This post is authored by Luke Froeb (William C. Oehmig Chair in ... Calling into Question the FTC’s Theory of the Case in FTC v. Qualcomm
An Evidentiary Cornerstone of the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Qualcomm May Have Rested on Manipulated Data
[TOTM: The following is the fourth in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the FTC v. Qualcomm case, currently awaiting decision by Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. The entire series of posts is available here. This post originally appeared on the Federalist Society Blog.] The courtroom trial ... An Evidentiary Cornerstone of the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Qualcomm May Have Rested on Manipulated Data
FTC v. Qualcomm: A Case of Regulatory Capture?
[TOTM: The following is the sixth in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the FTC v. Qualcomm case recently decided by Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. Other posts in this series are here. This post is authored by Jonathan M. Barnett, Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law ... FTC v. Qualcomm: A Case of Regulatory Capture?
Should Patent Hold-Out Concerns Trump Patent Hold-Up Misgivings?
[TOTM: The following is the seventh in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the FTC v. Qualcomm case recently decided by Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. Other posts in this series are here.] This post is authored by Gerard Lloblet, Professor of Economics at CEMFI, and Jorge ... Should Patent Hold-Out Concerns Trump Patent Hold-Up Misgivings?
In FTC v. Qualcomm, Judge Koh Gets Lost in the Weeds
[TOTM: The following is the eighth in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the FTC v. Qualcomm case recently decided by Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. Other posts in this series are here. The blog post is based on a forthcoming paper regarding patent holdup, co-authored by ... In FTC v. Qualcomm, Judge Koh Gets Lost in the Weeds
The District Court’s FTC v. Qualcomm Decision Rests on Impermissible Inferences and Should Be Reversed
Last week the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) and twelve noted law and economics scholars filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in FTC v. Qualcomm, in support of appellant (Qualcomm) and urging reversal of the district court’s decision. The brief was authored by Geoffrey A. Manne, President & founder of ICLE, and ... The District Court’s FTC v. Qualcomm Decision Rests on Impermissible Inferences and Should Be Reversed
Why the FTC had to Abandon the Duty to Deal Argument Against Qualcomm
On November 22, the FTC filed its answering brief in the FTC v. Qualcomm litigation. As we’ve noted before, it has always seemed a little odd that the current FTC is so vigorously pursuing this case, given some of the precedents it might set and the Commission majority’s apparent views on such issues. But this ... Why the FTC had to Abandon the Duty to Deal Argument Against Qualcomm
Exclusionary Pricing Without the Exclusion: Unpacking Qualcomm’s No License, No Chips Policy
Qualcomm is currently in the midst of a high-profile antitrust case against the FTC. At the heart of these proceedings lies Qualcomm’s so-called “No License, No Chips” (NLNC) policy, whereby it purportedly refuses to sell chips to OEMs that have not concluded a license agreement covering its underlying intellectual property. According to the FTC and ... Exclusionary Pricing Without the Exclusion: Unpacking Qualcomm’s No License, No Chips Policy
Manne and Auer’s Defense of Qualcomm’s Licensing Policy Is Deeply Flawed
[This guest post is authored by Mark A. Lemley, Professor of Law and the Director of Program in Law, Science & Technology at Stanford Law School; A. Douglas Melamed, Professor of the Practice of Law at Stanford Law School and Former Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Intel from 2009 to 2014; and Steven ... Manne and Auer’s Defense of Qualcomm’s Licensing Policy Is Deeply Flawed
Is FRAND Litigation a Credible Threat?: A reply to Mark Lemley, Douglas Melamed and Steven Salop
Last week, we posted a piece on TOTM, criticizing the amicus brief written by Mark Lemley, Douglas Melamed and Steven Salop in the ongoing Qualcomm litigation. The authors prepared a thoughtful response to our piece, which we published today on TOTM. In this post, we highlight the points where we agree with the amici (or ... Is FRAND Litigation a Credible Threat?: A reply to Mark Lemley, Douglas Melamed and Steven Salop
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
[This guest post is authored by Mark A. Lemley, Professor of Law and the Director of Program in Law, Science & Technology at Stanford Law School; A. Douglas Melamed, Professor of the Practice of Law at Stanford Law School and Former Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Intel from 2009 to 2014; and Steven ... 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
Debating the FTC v Qualcomm Amicus Brief, a Summary
Qualcomm is currently in the midst of a high-profile antitrust case against the FTC. At the heart of these proceedings lies Qualcomm’s so-called “No License, No Chips” (NLNC) policy, whereby it purportedly refuses to sell chips to OEMs that have not concluded a license agreement covering its underlying intellectual property. According to the FTC and ... Debating the FTC v Qualcomm Amicus Brief, a Summary