77 Bipartisan former antitrust enforcers, academics critique Delrahim on patent holdup
On May 17, 2018, an open letter was addressed to Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim by 77 former government enforcement officials and academics, who do not believe his recent speeches on patents and patent holdup “are consistent with the broad bipartisan legal and economic consensus that has existed for over a decade regarding standard setting.”
The letter (which can be downloaded in its entirety here) raises eight specific issues:
-
“The anticompetitive harms from patent holdup have been consistently acknowledged by officials in Republican and Democratic administrations.”
-
“The holdup problem has been recognized by courts and standard setting organizations themselves.”
-
“[They] agree that the “holdup and holdout problems are not symmetric”, [but] … believe that it is holdup that presents the more serious antitrust concern.”
-
“Patentees that obtain or maintain monopoly power as a result of breaching a FRAND commitment present a standard monopolization case.”
-
“While [they] agree that patents are important for innovation and that injunctive relief often is appropriate, [they] do not agree that patents provide an unqualified “property right to exclude” that is accompanied by an injunction and a conclusion that “unilateral patent holdup” is “per se legal”.”
-
“The position that patent infringement necessarily results in injunction is, for good reason, no longer law.”
-
“Pointing to exclusive rights granted to patentees as a type of natural property right ignores the uncontroversial utilitarian framework for the patent grant.”
-
“[They] do not believe that holding patentees to their promise of licensing on FRAND terms “amount[s] to a troubling de facto compulsory licensing scheme”.”
Signatories of the letter include Michael Carrier (Rutgers), Timothy Muris (Stanford, former FTC Chairman and Acting AAG), Richard Gilbert (Berkeley, former DAAG), Fiona Scott Morton (Yale, former DAAG), Janusz Ordover (NYU, former DAAG), Daniel Rubinfeld (NYU, former DAAG), Jonathan Baker (AUWCL, former Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics), and David Balto (former Policy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition).
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh