By Erik Hovenkamp(University of Southern California) & Timothy Simcoe (Boston University)
In an enforcement action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, a district court recently found that Qualcomm violated the antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive exclusive dealing and refusing to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to rivals. In this article, we unpack and evaluate three aspects of the Qualcomm decision. First, we describe how the tying relationship between chips and licenses goes primarily in the opposite direction of how most commentators characterize it. Second, we consider how Qualcomm’s commitments to license its SEPs on “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) terms bear on the antitrust analysis. Third, we discuss how FRAND might have been used to better justify finding an antitrust duty-to-deal with competitors.
Featured News
Turkey Fines Meta $10.4 Million for Abusing Market Dominance
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Canadian Watchdog Launches Inquiry into Lululemon’s Greenwashing Practices
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Massachusetts Supreme Court Deliberates Ballot Redefining Gig Worker Status
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
European Commission Approves Nippon Steel’s $14.9 Billion Buyout of U.S. Steel
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Banco Sabadell Rejects Rival BBVA Merger Proposal
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI