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.
Participants
- Dirk Auer, Senior Fellow, Law & Economics, International Center for Law & Economics
- Jonathan M. Barnett, Torry H. Webb Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
- Michael J. Doane, Director, Competition Economics, LLC
- Luke Froeb, William C. Oehmig Chair in Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, Vanderbilt University Owen School of Management
- Douglas Ginsburg, Professor of Law, George Mason School of Law & Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
- Mark A. Lemley, Professor of Law and the Director of Program in Law, Science & Technology at Stanford Law School
- Gerard Llobet, Associate Professor, CEMFI
- Geoffrey A. Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law & Economics
- 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
- Jorge Padilla, Senior Managing Director and Head of Compass Lexecon Europe
- Steven Salop, Professor of Economics and Law at Georgetown Law School
- Mikhael Shor, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Connecticut)
- Ben Sperry, Associate Director, Legal Research, International Center for Law & Economics
- Joshua Wright, University Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Series Posts (in order of posting)
- FTC v. Qualcomm: Innovation and Competition (Manne)
- Calling into Question the FTC’s Theory of the Case in FTC v. Qualcomm (Froeb, Doane & Shor)
- Use and Abuse of Bargaining Models in Antitrust: AT&T/Time-Warner and FTC v. Qualcomm (Ginsburg & Wright)
- An Evidentiary Cornerstone of the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Qualcomm May Have Rested on Manipulated Data (Manne)
- A Bargaining Model v. Reality in FTC v. Qualcomm: A Reply to Kattan & Muris (Ginsburg & Wright)
- FTC v. Qualcomm: A Case of Regulatory Capture? (Barnett)
- Should Patent Hold-Out Concerns Trump Patent Hold-Up Misgivings? (Llobet & Padilla)
- In FTC v. Qualcomm, Judge Koh Gets Lost in the Weeds (Auer)
- The District Court’s FTC v. Qualcomm Decision Rests on Impermissible Inferences and Should Be Reversed (Manne & Sperry)
- Why the FTC had to Abandon the Duty to Deal Argument Against Qualcomm (Manne & Sperry)
- Exclusionary Pricing Without the Exclusion: Unpacking Qualcomm’s No License, No Chips Policy (Manne & Auer)
- Manne and Auer’s Defense of Qualcomm’s Licensing Policy Is Deeply Flawed (Lemley, Melamed, and Salop)
- Is FRAND Litigation a Credible Threat?: A reply to Mark Lemley, Douglas Melamed and Steven Salop (Manne & Auer)
- 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 (Lemley, Melamed, and Salop)
- Debating the FTC v Qualcomm Amicus Brief, a Summary (Manne & Auer)
RSS - Posts