[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/compol/qt9756j0km.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The FTC's Challenge to Intel's Cross-Licensing Practices

Author

Listed:
  • Shapiro, Carl
Abstract
After an investigation lasting several months, in June 1998 the Federal Trade Commission brought an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corporation based on Intel's conduct towards Intergraph, and similar conduct towards Digital Equipment Corporation and Compaq, all in the context of disputes where Intel was accused of patent infringement. The FTC charged that Intel's practices were an abuse of Intel's monopoly position in microprocessors. Is Intel's conduct anti-competitive and thus illegal under the antitrust laws? That is the central question explored in this paper. An introductory section provides some background for the case by discussing the tension between intellectual property rights and antitrust law, a tension that is evident in the FTC's dispute with Intel, and by describing the role of patents in the semiconductor industry. Section 3 provides a succinct summary of the facts surrounding Intel's conduct in each of the three patent disputes identified by the FTC. Section 4 explains the FTC's theory of how Intel's conduct was anti-competitive. Section 5 presents Intel's response. Section 6 describes the settlement reached between the FTC and Intel. The final section discusses legal and economic developments since the case was settled and remarks on the lasting implications of the Intel case.

Suggested Citation

  • Shapiro, Carl, 2002. "The FTC's Challenge to Intel's Cross-Licensing Practices," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt9756j0km, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:compol:qt9756j0km
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9756j0km.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Richard J. Gilbert & Willard K. Tom, 2001. "Is Innovation King at the Antitrust Agencies? The Intellectual Property Guidelines Five Years Later," Industrial Organization 0106002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1997. "Antitrust Issues in the Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Nine No-No's Meet the Nineties," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 28(1997 Micr), pages 283-349.
    5. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    6. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shapiro, Carl, 2003. "Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 391-411, Summer.
    2. Paroma Sanyal, 2005. "Peanut Butter Patents Versus the New Economy: Does the Increased Rate of Patenting Signal More Invention or Just Lower Standards?," Industrial Organization 0504013, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005. "Exploring the Patent Explosion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 35-48, January.
    5. Katrin Hussinger, 2006. "Is Silence Golden? Patents Versus Secrecy At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(8), pages 735-752.
    6. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    9. Markus Reitzig, 2004. "The private values of 'thickets' and 'fences': towards an updated picture of the use of patents across industries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 457-476.
    10. Schneider, Cédric, 2008. "Fences and competition in patent races," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1348-1364, November.
    11. Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, 2008. "Patent--Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 142-158.
    12. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    13. Jinyoung Kim & Gerald Marschke, 2004. "Labor Mobility Of Scientists, Technological Diffusion, And The Firm’S Patenting Decision," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 586, Econometric Society.
    14. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.
    15. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "Examining Biases in Measures of Firm Innovation," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n10, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    17. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2004. "SMEs and Their Use of Intellectual Property Rights in Australia," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n17, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    18. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation: Causal Evidence from the Courts," CEP Discussion Papers dp1205, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    19. Siebert, Ralph & von Graevenitz, Georg, 2006. "How Licensing Resolves Hold-Up: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity," CEPR Discussion Papers 5436, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    antitrust; Intel; intellectual property; patent infringement; patent thicket; FTC;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K1 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:compol:qt9756j0km. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibbrkus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.