Posted by Social Science Research Network
Why Patent Hold-Up Does Not Violate Antitrust Law
By Gregory J. Werden & Luke M. Froeb
Owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) are cast as villains for engaging in “patent hold-up,” i.e., taking advantage of the fact that they negotiate royalties with implementer-licensees that already have made sunk investments in the standard. In contrast to “patent ambush,” patent hold-up involves no standard-setting misconduct or harm to any competitive process, and thus cannot violate antitrust law. Commentators taking a contrary positions confuse the ends of antitrust law with its means. Antitrust law promotes consumer welfare only by protecting competition. Casting aside this core principle would expose business decisions, including ordinary price setting, to judicial oversight. Commitments made by SEP owners in the standard-setting process, however, should be enforced, and they are enforced. Without an antitrust cause of action, implementers invoke the powers of the courts to resolve royalty disputes over SEPs.
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