Arrow, KJ. 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 609–25.Google Scholar

Brennan, TJ. 2007. Should Innovation Rationalize Supra-Competitive Prices? A Skeptical Speculation. In Fredenberg, A. (ed.), The Pros and Cons of High Prices. Stockholm: Konkurrensverket/Swedish Competition Authority, pp. 88–127.Google Scholar

Carlton, D., Gans, JS., and Waldman, M.. 2010. Why Tie a Product Consumers Do Not Use? American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(3), 85–105.Google Scholar

Department of Justice. 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Proposed. Washington, DC: Mimeo.Google Scholar

Evans, DS. and Schmalensee, R.. 2002. Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries. In Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J. and Stern, S. (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 2, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, chapter 1.Google Scholar

Fisher, FM. 2000. The IBM and Microsoft Cases: What’s the Difference? American Economic Review, 90(2) 180–3.Google Scholar

Gans, JS. 2009. Negotiating for the Market. Melbourne: Mimeo.Google Scholar

Gans, J.S. 2010. When is Static Analysis a Sufficient Proxy for Dynamic Considerations? Reconsidering Innovation and Antitrust. In Lerner, J. and Stern, S. (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 11. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar

Gans, J.S. 2013. Intel and Blocking Practices (2010). In Kwoka, J. and White, L. (eds.), The Antitrust Revolution, 6th edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gans, JS. and Persson, L.. 2013. Entrepreneurial Commercialization Choices and the Interaction between IPR and Competition Policy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 131–51.Google Scholar

Gans, JS. and Stern, S.. 2000. Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9(4), 485–511.Google Scholar

Gans, J.S. and Stern, S.. 2003. The Product Market and the “Market for Ideas”: Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–50.Google Scholar

Gilbert, R. 2006. Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition Innovation Debate? In Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner, Josh, and Stern, Scott (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, 6, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar

Gilbert, R. 2007. Holding Innovation to an Antitrust Standard. Competition Policy International, 3, 47–77.Google Scholar

Gilbert, R. and Newbery, D.. 1982. Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly. American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–26.Google Scholar

Manne, G. and Wright, J.. 2009. “Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust,” George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 09–54; Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009–26. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1490849.Google Scholar

Ordover, J. and Willig, R.. 1981. An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation. Yale Law Journal, 9, 8–53.Google Scholar

Rasmussen, E. 1988. Entry for Buyout. Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(3), 281–99.Google Scholar

Reinganum, J.F. 1989. On the Timing of Innovation. In Schmalansee, R. and Willig, R. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 849–908.Google Scholar

Segal, I. and Whinston, M.. 2007. Antitrust in Innovative Industries. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1703–30.Google Scholar

Teece, DJ. 1987. Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy. In Teece, DJ. (ed.), The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 185–220.Google Scholar

Addanki, Sumanth and Butler, Henry N.. 2014. Activating Actavis: Economic Issues in Applying the Rule of Reason to Reverse Payment Settlements. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 15(1), 77–94.Google Scholar

Addanki, Sumanth and Daskin, Alan J.. 2008. Patent Settlement Agreements. ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 3, 2127–53.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2004. Antitrust Implications of Patent Settlements Involving Reverse Payments: Defending a Rebuttable Presumption of Illegality in Light of Some Recent Scholarship. Antitrust Law Journal, 71(3), 1069–97.Google Scholar

Cramer, Eric L. and Berger, Daniel. 2004. The Superiority of Direct Proof of Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Effects in Antitrust Cases Involving Delayed Entry of Generic Drugs. University of San Francisco Law Review, 39, 81–140.Google Scholar

Drake, Keith M., Starr, Martha A., and McGuire, Thomas. 2014. Do “Reverse Payment” Settlements of Brand-Generic Patent Disputes in the Pharmaceutical Industry Constitute an Anticompetitive Pay for Delay? NBER Working Paper No. 20292. July.Google Scholar

Edlin, Aaron, Hemphill, Scott, Hovenkamp, Herbert, and Shapiro, Carl. 2013. Activating Actavis. Antitrust Magazine, 28(1), 16–23.Google Scholar

Elhauge, Einer and Krueger, Alex. 2012. Solving the Patent Settlement Puzzle. Texas Law Review, 91, 283–330.Google Scholar

Federal Trade Commission. 2006. Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Before the Special Committee on Aging of the United States Senate on Barriers to Generic Entry. Available at www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/prepared-statement-federal-trade-commission-generic-drug-entry/p052103barrierstogenericentrytestimonysenate07202006.pdf.Google Scholar

Federal Trade Commission. 2015. Brief for Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant in Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott plc, et al.. Available at www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc.v.warner-chilcott-plc-et-al./151001mylanamicusbrief.pdf.Google Scholar

Golden Gate Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 10–15978 (9th Cir. May 19, 2011).Google Scholar

Harris, Barry C., Murphy, Kevin M., Willig, Robert D., and Wright, Matthew B.. 2014. Activating Actavis: A More Complete Story. Antitrust Magazine, 28(2), 83–9.Google Scholar

Heading for the Emergency Room. 2009. The Economist, June 25. Available at www.economist.com/node/13899647.Google Scholar

Hirsh, Merrill and Dorfman, Dan Zoloth. 2005. I Didn’t Say Orphan Often: The Benefits of a Bright-Line Rule Barring Brand to Generic Payments in Hatch-Waxman Patent Settlements. Antitrust Health Care Chronicle, 19(2).Google Scholar

Lamberti, Mary J. and Getz, Kenneth. 2015. Profiles of New Approaches to Improving the Efficiency and Performance of Pharmaceutical Drug Development. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development White Paper. Available at http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/CSSD_PhRMAWhitePaperNEWEST.pdf.Google Scholar

Langenfeld, James. 2013. Evaluating the Size of “Reverse Payments” in Light of the Supreme Court’s Decision in FTC v. Actavis. CPI Antitrust Chronicle. Available at www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/evaluating-the-size-of-reverse-payments-in-light-of-the-supreme-court-s-decision-in-ftc-v-actavis-2/.Google Scholar

Leffler, Keith B. and Leffler, Cristofer I.. 2002. Want to Pay a Competitor to Exit the Market? Settle a Patent Infringement Case; An Argument for Per Se Condemnation of Payments by the Patent Holder. ABA Section of Antitrust Law Economics Committee Newsletter, Spring, 26–35.Google Scholar

Meijer, Inc. v. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.C. 2008).Google Scholar

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott plc, et al. Civ. No. 12–3824 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2015).Google Scholar

National Science Foundation. 2015. Business Research and Development and Innovation: 2012. Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16301/.Google Scholar

Orszag, Jonathan. 2013. Statement of Jon Orszag Before the Committee on Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Available at www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CHRG-113shrg87818.pdf.Google Scholar

Padilla, Jorge and Meunier, Valerie. 2015. Should Reverse Payment Patent Settlements Be Prohibited Per Se? Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2604071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robbins, Gary, Robbins, Aldonna, and Goodman, John. 1994. Inefficiency in the U.S. Health Care System: What Can We Do? NCPA Policy Report No. 182. Available at www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st182.pdf.Google Scholar

Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056, 1060 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar

Shapiro, Carl F. 2003. Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements. RAND Journal of Economics, 34(1), 391–411.Google Scholar

UK National Health Service. 2014. Medicines information – Licensing. Available at www.nhs.uk/conditions/Medicinesinfo/pages/safetyissues.aspx.Google Scholar

US Food and Drug Administration. 2014. “Off-Label” and Investigational Use of Marketed Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices – Information Sheet. Available at www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126486.htm.Google Scholar

US Food and Drug Administration. 2015. Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug. Available at www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=314.Google Scholar

Vivian, Jesse C. 2008. Generic-Substitution Laws. U.S. Pharmacist. Available at www.uspharmacist.com/content/s/44/c/9787/.Google Scholar

Armstrong, M. 2006. Competition in Two-sided Markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–91.Google Scholar

Atkinson, R.D. and Audretsch, D.B.. 2011. Economic Doctrines and Approaches to Antitrust. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Summer, 6.Google Scholar

Boliek, B. 2011. FCC Regulation Versus Antitrust: How Net Neutrality is Defining the Boundaries. Boston College Law Review, 52, 1628–9.Google Scholar

Crandall, R.W. and Jackson, C.L.. 2011. Antitrust in High-Tech Industries. Review of Industrial Organization 38(4), 319–62.Google Scholar

Eisenach, J.A. 2012. Broadband Competition in the Internet Ecosystem. AEI Economic Studies, October, 1.Google Scholar

Evans, D. 2009. The Middle Way on Applying Antitrust to Information Technology. Competition Policy International , November (2), 2.Google Scholar

Fisher, Franklin M. 1978. Diagnosing Monopoly. Working Paper Department of Economics, MIT No. 226.Google Scholar

Hahn, Robert W., Litan, Robert E. and Singer, Hal J.. 2007. The Economics of “Wireless Net Neutrality.” AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. RP07–10.Google Scholar

Hazlett, T.W. and Weisman, D.. 2009. Market Power in U.S. Broadband Services. George Mason Law and Economic Research Paper Series 1–32.Google Scholar

Hemphill, C. Scott. 2008. Network Neutrality and the False Promise of Zero-Price Regulation. Yale Journal on Regulation, 25, 135.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, H. 2012a. Antitrust and the Movement of Technology. George Mason Law Review, 19, 1119.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, H.J. 2012b. Antitrust and Innovation: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Going. University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12–03, 749.Google Scholar

Kahn, Alfred E. 2006. Telecommunications: The Transition from Regulation to Antitrust. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 5, 159.Google Scholar

Katz, M.L. and Shelanski, H.A.. 2005. Schumpeterian Competition and Antitrust Policy in High Tech Markets. Competition, 7, 4.Google Scholar

Manne, G.A. and Wright, J.D.. 2010. Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6(1), 156–7.Google Scholar

Nuechterlein, Jonathan E. 2009. Antitrust Oversight of an Antitrust Debate: An Institutional Perspective on the Net Neutrality Debate. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 7, 19.Google Scholar

Owen, B.M. 2011. Antitrust and Vertical Integration in “New Economy” Industries with Application to Broadband Access. Review of Industrial Organization 38(4), 363–86.Google Scholar

Parker, G.G. and Alstyne, M.W.. 2005. Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494–504.Google Scholar

Pasquale, Frank. 2010. Beyond Innovation and Competition: The Need for Qualified Transparency in Internet Intermediaries. Northwestern University Law Review, 104, 105.Google Scholar

Prieger, James E., Molnar, Gabor, and Savage, Scott J.. 2014. Quality Competition in the Broadband Service Provision Industry. Paper presented at 2014 TPRC/42nd Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy.Google Scholar

Rysman, M. 2009. The Economics of Two-Sided Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125–30.Google Scholar

Shapiro, C. 1999. Exclusivity in Network Industries. George Mason Law Review, 7, 673.Google Scholar

Shelanski, H.A. 2007. Adjusting Regulation to Competition: Toward a New Model for U.S. Telecommunications Policy. Yale Law Journal on Regulation, 24, 57.Google Scholar

Spulber, D.F. and Yoo, C.S.. 2007. Mandating Access to Telecom and the Internet: The Hidden Side of Trinko. Columbia Law Review, 107.Google Scholar

Yoo, C. 2005. Beyond Network Neutrality. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 19, 1–7.Google Scholar

Yoo, C.S. 2006. Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion. Georgetown Law Journal, 94, 1851–2.Google Scholar

Brooks, Roger and Geradin, Damien. 2011. Taking Contracts Seriously: The Meaning of the Voluntary Commitment to License Essential Patents on “Fair and Reasonable” Terms. In Anderman, S. and Ezrachi, A. (eds.), Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis W. and Shampine, Allan L.. 2014. Identifying Benchmarks for Applying Non-Discrimination in FRAND. Competition Policy International Chronicle, 1, 2.Google Scholar

Chien, Colleen. 2014. “Holding up” and “Holding Out”. Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review, 21, 1.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge. 2015. Market Reliance and Patent Pledges. Utah Law Review, 2.Google Scholar

Cournot, Augustin. 1838. Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. Bacon, Nathaniel T. trans. New York: Macmillan (1987).Google Scholar

CSIRO v. Cisco. Federal Circuit. December 1, 2015.Google Scholar

Department of Justice. 2006. Letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett to Robert A. Skitol, October 30. Available at www.justice.gov/atr/response-vmebus-international-trade-association-vitas-request-business-review-letter.Google Scholar

Department of Justice. 2015. Letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata B. Hesse to Michael A. Lindsay, February 2. Available at www.justice.gov/atr/response-institute-electrical-and-electronics-engineers-incorporated.Google Scholar

Department of Justice and U.S. Patent Office. 2013. Policy Statement on Remedies For Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/Rand Commitments. Available at www.uspto.gov/about/offices/ogc/Final_DOJ-PTO_Policy_Statement_on_FRAND_SEPs_1-8-13.pdf.Google Scholar

Elhauge, Einer. 2008. Do Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Lead to Systematically Excessive Royalties? Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 4, 535.Google Scholar

Elhauge, Einer. 2015. Treating RAND Commitments Neutrally. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ericsson v. D-Link, 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014).Google Scholar

ETSI IPR Policy. 2014. Available at www.etsi.org/images/files/ipr/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf.Google Scholar

Ewing, Tom. 2011. Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights By Corporations and Investors. Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal, 4.Google Scholar

FTC. 2007. Opinion of the Commission on Remedy in the Matter of Rambus Inc. by Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras.Google Scholar

Farrell, Joseph and Katz, Michael. 2005. Competition or Predation? Consumer Coordination, Strategic Pricing and Price Floors in Network Markets. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(2), 203.Google Scholar

Farrell, Joseph, Hayes, John, Shapiro, Carl, and Sullivan, Catherine. 2007. Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-Up. Antitrust Law Journal, 74, 603.Google Scholar

Galetovic, Alexander, Haber, Stephen, and Levine, Ross. 2015. An Empirical Examination of Patent Holdup. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 11(3), 1.Google Scholar

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.) 1970.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2010. Reverse Hold-ups: The (Often Ignored) Risks Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas. The Pros and Cons of Standard Setting 2010. Swedish Competition Authority.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2014. The Meaning of “Fair and Reasonable” in the Context of Third-Party Determination of FRAND Terms. George Mason Law Review, 21, 919.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien and Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2007. The Logic and Limits of Ex Ante Competition in a Standard-Setting Environment. Competition Policy International, 3(1).Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, Anne, and Padilla, Jorge. 2008. The Ex Ante Auction Model for the Control of Market Power in Standard Setting Organizations. European Competition Journal, 4(8).Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, Anne, and Padilla, Jorge. 2011. Elves or Trolls? The Role of Nonpracticing Patent Owners in the Innovation Economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, June, 1.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard. 2011. Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations by Standard Setting Organizations. Antitrust Law Journal, 77, 855.Google Scholar

Golden, John. 2007. Commentary: “Patent Trolls” and Patent Remedies. Texas Law Review, 85, 2111.Google Scholar

Harkrider, John. 2013. REPs Not SEPs: A Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Approach to Licensing Commitments. Antitrust Chronicle, 10.Google Scholar

IEEE IPR Policy. Available at https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-changes.pdf.Google Scholar

Kieff, F. Scott and Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2013. Incentive Effects from Different Approaches to Holdup Mitigation Surrounding Patent Remedies and Standard-Setting Organizations. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 9(4), 1–33.Google Scholar

Larouche, Pierre, Padilla, Jorge, and Taffet, Richard. 2014. Settling FRAND Disputes: Is Mandatory Arbitration a Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Alternative? Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 10, 581.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2010. Nondiscriminatory Pricing: Is Standard Setting Different? Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6(4), 1.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2011. Innovative or Indefensible? An Empirical Assessment of Patenting within Standard Setting. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, 9, 1–18.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2014. Moving Past the SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing. George Mason Law Review, 21.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne and Llobet, Gerard. 2014. Moving Beyond Simple Examples: Assessing the Incremental Value Rule within Standards. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 36, 57.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne and Wong-Ervin, Koren. 2015. An Analysis of the Federal Circuit’s Decision in Ericsson v. D-Link. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Llobet, Gerard, and Padilla, Jorge. 2014a. Payments and Participation: The Incentives to Join Cooperative Standard Setting Efforts. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 23, 24–49.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Llobet, Gerard, and Padilla, Jorge. 2014b. Patent Licensing in Vertically Disaggregated Industries: The Royalty Allocation Neutrality Principle. Communications and Strategies 5.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Padilla, Jorge, and Schmalensee, Richard. 2007. Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments. Antitrust Law Journal, 74, 671.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark and Melamed, Douglas. 2013. Missing the Forest for the Trolls. Columbia Law Review, 113, 2117.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark and Shapiro, Carl. 2007. Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking. Texas Law Review, 85, 1989.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark and Shapiro, Carl. 2013. A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 28, 1135.Google Scholar

Lerner, Joshua and Tirole, Jean. 2015. Restoring Competition in Standard-essential Patents. Journal of Political Economy, 123(3), 547.Google Scholar

Lloyd, Andrew. 2015. Ericsson and Nokia the latest to confirm that they will not license under the new IEEE patent policy. IAM, blog. Available at www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=d07d0bde-ebd6-495a-aa72-4eecb9dac67d.Google Scholar

Mariniello, Mario. 2011. Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: A Challenge for Competition Authorities. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 7, 523.Google Scholar

Microsoft v. Motorola. 2012. Federal Circuit. 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir.).Google Scholar

Microsoft v. Motorola. 2013. Federal Circuit. Case No. C10-1823JLR.Google Scholar

Miller, Joseph Scott. 2006. Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm. Indiana Law Review, 40.Google Scholar

Mintzer, Erica and Munck, Suzanne. 2014. The Joint U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Patent Assertion Entity Activities – “Follow The Money.” Antitrust Law Journal, 79, 423.Google Scholar

Ohana, Gil, Hansen, Marc and Shah, Omar. 2003. Disclosure and Negotiation of Licensing Terms Prior to Adoption of Industry Standards: Preventing Another Patent Ambush. European Competition Law Review, 24, 644.Google Scholar

Rambus v. FTC. 2008. 522 F.3d 456 Nos. 07-1086, 07-1124. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.Google Scholar

Realtek v. LSI. 2014. District Court, Northern District of California. Case No. C-12-3451-RMW.Google Scholar

Rysman, Marc and Simcoe, Tim. 2008. Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations. Management Science, 54(11), 1920.Google Scholar

Scott Morton, Fiona and Shapiro, Carl. 2014. Strategic Patent Acquisitions. Antitrust Law Journal, 79(2) 463.Google Scholar

Scott Morton, Fiona and Shapiro, Carl. 2015. Patent Assertions: Are We Any Closer to Aligning Reward to Contribution? NBER Working Paper.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Carl. 2001. Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting. In Jaffe, Adam, Lerner, Joshua, and Stern, Scott (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Swanson, D. and Baumol, W.. 2005. Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and the Control of Market Power. Antitrust Law Journal, 73, 727.Google Scholar

VirnetX, Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Apple Inc. 2014. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit.Google Scholar

Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar