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

Just days before leaving office, the outgoing Obama FTC left what should have been an unwelcome parting gift for the incoming Commission: an antitrust suit against Qualcomm. This week the FTC — under a new Chairman and with an entirely new set of Commissioners — finished unwrapping its present, and rested its case in the trial begun ... FTC v. Qualcomm: Innovation and Competition

Calling into Question the FTC’s Theory of the Case in FTC v. Qualcomm

This post does not attempt to answer the question of what the court should decide in FTC v. Qualcomm because we do not have access to the information that would allow us to make such a determination. Rather, we focus on economic issues confronting the court by drawing heavily from our writings in this area: ... 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

The courtroom trial in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) antitrust case against Qualcomm ended in January with a promise from the judge in the case, Judge Lucy Koh, to issue a ruling as quickly as possible — caveated by her acknowledgement that the case is complicated and the evidence voluminous. Well, things have only gotten more ... An Evidentiary Cornerstone of the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Qualcomm May Have Rested on Manipulated Data

A Bargaining Model v. Reality in FTC v. Qualcomm: A Reply to Kattan & Muris

Introduction In a recent article[1] Joe Kattan and Tim Muris (K&M) criticize our article[2] on the predictive power of bargaining models in antitrust, in which we used two recent applications to explore implications for uses of bargaining models in courts and antitrust agencies moving forward.  Like other theoretical models used to predict competitive effects, complex bargaining models ... A Bargaining Model v. Reality in FTC v. Qualcomm: A Reply to Kattan & Muris

FTC v. Qualcomm: A Case of Regulatory Capture?

There is little doubt that the decision in May 2019 by the Northern District of California in FTC v. Qualcomm is of historical importance. Unless reversed or modified on appeal, the decision would require that the lead innovator behind 3G and 4G smartphone technology renegotiate hundreds of existing licenses with device producers and offer new ... FTC v. Qualcomm: A Case of Regulatory Capture?

Should Patent Hold-Out Concerns Trump Patent Hold-Up Misgivings?

Over the last few years competition authorities in the US and elsewhere have repeatedly warned about the risk of patent hold-up in the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Concerns about such risks were front and center in the recent FTC case against Qualcomm, where the Court ultimately concluded that Qualcomm had used a series ... Should Patent Hold-Out Concerns Trump Patent Hold-Up Misgivings?

In FTC v. Qualcomm, Judge Koh Gets Lost in the Weeds

In his latest book, Tyler Cowen calls big business an “American anti-hero”. Cowen argues that the growing animosity towards successful technology firms is to a large extent unwarranted. After all, these companies have generated tremendous prosperity and jobs. Though it is less known to the public than its Silicon Valley counterparts, Qualcomm perfectly fits the ... In FTC v. Qualcomm, Judge Koh Gets Lost in the Weeds

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

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

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

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

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