Open Markets and 40 legal scholars have weighed in with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs backing its charges.
The scholars, including some from Stanford and Georgetown, told a federal appeals court that the “so-called ‘no license, no chips’ policy of refusing to sell chipsets to smartphone makers unless those firms also agreed to license Qualcomm’s patented technologies on terms specified by Qualcomm violates the antitrust laws.”
Separately, in its own amicus brief, Open Markets agreed, saying that “a failure to hold Qualcomm responsible for its running violation of antitrust law would be a dangerous signal to corporations everywhere and only further encourage their exclusionary and predatory business practices.”
In a temporary victory for chip maker Qualcomm, the Ninth Circuit in August let the company continue to condition chip sales on buying a patent license, saying the company had made a good case for why its conduct did not violate antitrust.
Full Content: Law Georgetown
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
