Correlated Intellectual Property Rights : A Foundational Solution to the Problems of Patent Holdup and Patent Holdout

(1)

Faculty of Law University of Helsinki

Helsinki

CORRELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

A FOUNDATIONAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF PATENT HOLDUP AND PATENT HOLDOUT

Ricky James

ACADEMIC DISSERTATION

To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Law of the University of Helsinki, for public examination

in the lecture room Porthania 111, on 14 December 2018 at 12 noon.

Helsinki 2018

(2)

Cover Picture: Visions of An Airplane Monopoly, Picture of the Wright Flyer taken at the Smithsonian Institute by Rick James and edited by Elsa James

ISBN 978-951-51-4702-8 Unigrafia

Helsinki 2018

(3)

I

FForward and Acknowledgments

While working as a financial consultant, I became aware of the problems that the small technology companies were having with respect to monetising the use of their intellectual property. Usually this involved a multinational technology company using their technology without their permission. The directors of the companies explained to me that there was little that they could do about it, since they had neither the financial or legal resources to pursue protracted litigation.

Looking for information on this problem, I became aware of another problem which was dominating the discussion in the field of intellectual property law. That problem involved intellectual property owners using the threat of injunctive action to coerce those same multinational technology companies into paying excessive licensing rates. Instinctively I came to believe that these two problems generally referred to as “patent holdout” and “patent holdup”

were related.

To gain a better understanding of these problems, I enrolled in online courses at the University of London "Queen Mary" where I finished a Diploma in Law focused on intellectual property.

Shortly after I finished those studies I made a presentation at an IP conference in Helsinki about how patent holdup exemplified a "Tragedy of the AntiCommons" as described by Heller in his recent book "Gridlock Economy". In attendance at that conference was IP Professor from the University of Helsinki and he asked if I would consider joining their doctoral program, as I had the multi-disciplinary back-ground they were trying to promote at the University. Having this become increasingly intrigued about the prospect of solving these problems, I applied and was duly accepted.

The research for this doctoral program commenced with an analysis of several conventional solutions to the problems. These included; applying the essential facilities doctrine, expanding the patent misuse doctrine, FRAND enforcement, patent pools, and redefining patent rights according to the works of Lemley and Shapiro. The conclusion drawn from this research was that none of those proposed solutions provided a solution which was both workable and equitable. To the contrary it became clear that the leading solution which dramatically redefined patent rights, created an even greater inequity because it intentionally limited royalties of all patent owners to a fraction of their true value their property. Obviously, this meant that a new solution would have to be sought.

The search for a new solution began with detailed review of the history of property rights. This review was initiated in the expectation that it would reveal the underlying historical justification for the absolute property rights which formed the foundation of intellectual property law. This review included an examination of Locke's theory of property which provided a compelling argument in favour of the absolute property rights, which were the initial foundations of intellectual property law. The problem was that its unrealistic and overtly optimistic assumption did not conform to my knowledge of history. To rebut this theory that I decided to spend some

(4)

II the theory of the property continuum which is included in this thesis.

After gaining a better understanding of the history of property, I returned to my search for the solution to "patent holdup" and "legal attrition". Disillusioned with the prospect of finding solutions in competition law or intellectual property law, I started research in other bodies of law.

Specifically researching within bodies of laws which were covered in examples of an anticommons tragedy mentioned by Heller. The expectation being that those bodies of law must contain a solution to the problem identified by Heller. This led me to natural resource law and eventually to water law, where I discovered the “correlated rights doctrine”, which can be defined as follows:

'When multiple parties have individual property claims on an inherently integrated property each is legally entitled to their proportional share of the total value of that property and the law should protect that share from being appropriated by others, including other owners and users.

I immediately recognised that this was an equitable and pragmatic solution to the problems of both patent holdup and patent holdout. Moreover, it was an ideal solution because it could be used to replace rather than restrict the historically intellectual property foundations which established that all inventors should be granted relatively absolute and exclusive rights to their inventions. The premise being that while the old foundation is perfectly reasonable when a single inventor has created a standalone invention. Its reasonableness could be challenged when an invention is the result of multiple inventors contribute their individual innovations to an integrated technological product. This challenge resting on the correlated nature of modern

“integrated innovation”, wherein every contribution to an integrated technological product relies on the innovative contributions of others to create value, and the licensing behaviour of individual contributors will have a spill over effect their fellow contributors.

Because research on this doctrine and its application in integrated innovation disputes displayed such promise, a decision was taken not yield to the temptation of theoretical equivocation, but rather write a thesis which embraced an unapologetic proposition in favour of applying correlated intellectual property rights in intellectual property law. A decision which would need to be defended by providing a comprehensive assessment of the theoretical, legal and practical implications of applying the correlative rights doctrine in intellectual property law.

This comprehensive analysis being essential to the acceptance of a thesis which challenges the dominant views on the subject and seeks to establish a new foundation for intellectual property law.

The supervisor for this thesis were Professor Petri Kuoppamäki and Professor Taina Pihlajarinne, the pre-examiners were Dr. Ilkka Rahnasto and Ph.D. Rosa Maria Ballardini. PH.D.

Ballardini also acted as my opponent during the defence of this thesis. I would like to sincerely thank each of them for their efforts to see this thesis through to its defence. Given the contrarian nature of the thesis, the economic and sociology content contained within it, its global analysis and its length, these efforts were certainly beyond what is usually required from these roles.

(5)

III Professor Sabine Frerichs for her advice on Law and Society. Their advice provided a valuable contribution to the contents of this thesis. Special thanks also go to Professor Tuomas Mylly who expressed early and continued support for the work include in this thesis.

I would also like to express my appreciation to; Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, Theresa Yuan & Judge Richard Posner, Professor Michael Heller, Professor Carol Rose, Professor Michael Abramowicz, Professor Andrew Lang, Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and Professor Alan Dershowitz for expressing varying degrees to interest in the concept of applying correlated rights in intellectual property law. The expressions of interest by these international scholars has sustained me through times when this work was disparaged for being too far outside the prevailing consensus on how to solve the problems of patent holdup and patent holdout.

Also deserving of appreciation are Beata, Katri, Partick, Juha, and Toni who were members of the study group on competition law which I had the privilege of belonging to when I first started on this project. Even though our views may have diverged as to the benefits of competition law, they have continued to be a source of encouragement and inspiration.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for their love and support, with singular thanks going to my wife Ulla. Without her support and patience this thesis would not have been possible.

This thesis is dedicated to my children, Elsa and Henri. Hopefully its completion will help to ensure that their future creative endeavours will be properly rewarded.

Helsinki, 19 October 2018.

(6)

IV

Bibliography

Intellectual Property Specific: Books, Scholarly Articles, Research Responses, etc

Adamo, Kenneth R., Barry L. Cohen, Ethan Horwitz, Griffith B. Price, Andrew H. Simpson, Kevin Tottis, United States:

Injunctions in cases of infringement, AIPPI Study Question Response (2011)

Allison, John R. & Lemley, Mark A.: The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 STAN. L. REV. 955, 958 n.10 (2007)

Anand, Pravin, Aditya Gupta and Saukshmya, India, in Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012, 2nd ed.

(Thompson Reuters, 2011)

Aoki, Reiko and John Small: Compulsory licensing of technology and the essential facilities doctrine, (Information and Economic Policy, Mar. 2004)

Anderman, Steven and Hedvig Schmidt: EU Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: The Regulation of Innovation (OUP Oxford Press, 2011)

Barnett, Jonathon M., Has the Academy Led Patent Law Astray? Forthcoming in Berkeley Technological Law Journal, (January 11, 2017). Forthcoming, Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2017)Barr, Camille. "License to Collude: Patent Pools, the Patent Misuse Doctrine, and Princo."UCDL Rev. 45 629 (2011)

Bavasso, Essential Facilities in A refusal to deal can indeed constitute an abuse of dominant position under Article 82 EC Law: The Rise of an "Epithet" and the Consolidation of a Doctrine in the Communications Sector in Eeckhout and Tridimas eds Yearbook of European Law Ch. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2003)

Bensen, Eric E. & Danielle M. White, Using Apportionment to Rein in the Georgia-Pacific Factors, (Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 9 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1, 2008)

Bessen, James & Meurer, Michael J., The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 387 (2014) Blankfein-Tabachnich, David H., Intellectual Property Doctrine and Midlevel Principles, 1315 (Cal. L. Rev., 2013) Bodenhausen, G. H. C., Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention of the Protection of Intellectual Property, United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (1969)

Buhrow, Astrid and Jan Bernd Nordemann, Germany: Limitations on exclusive IP Rights by Competiton Law, AIPPI Study Question Response (2014)

Burk, Dan L. & Mark A. Lemley: Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 VA. L. REV. 1575, 1597–99 (2003)

Burk, Dan L. & Mark A. Lemley: Fence Posts or Sign Posts: Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1743 (University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2009).

Carroll, Michael W.: Patent Injunctions and the Problem of Uniformity Cost, Working Papers Series (Villanova University School of Law, 2007)

Chao, Bernard, After eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange: The Changing Landscape for Patent Remedies (June 26, 2008).

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, (2008)

Chappatte, Philippe. FRAND commitments—the case for antitrust intervention. European Competition Journal 5.2 319-346 (2009).;

Chien, Colleen V. and Lemley, Mark A., Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest. Cornell Law Review, 2012;

Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2022168. (July 2, 2012)

Chien, Colleen V., 'Holding Up' and 'Holding Out'. Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-13. (August 30, 2013)

Chused, Richard H.: A Property Anthology 2nd eds. (Andereson Publishing Co, 1997)

Clarkson, Gavin, & David DeKorte: The problem of patent thickets in convergent technologies, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1093. 180-200 (2006):

Coenen, Michael: Rules Against Rulification 576 (Yale L.J., December 1, 2014) Cohen, Adam: The Perfect Store: Inside eBay, (Back Bay Books, 2003) Cook, Trevor: EU Intellectual Property Law, (Oxford University Press, 2010)

Corne, Peter: NDRC's Qualcomm Decision Sends Mixed Messages (Dorsey Publication, Mar. 13, 2015) Cotropia, Christopher A.: Patent Law Viewed Through an Evidentiary Lens: The “Suggestion Test” as a Rule of Evidence, 1523 BYU L. REV. 1517, (2006)

Cotter, Thomas F., Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses Journal of Corporation Law, Vol. 34, No. 1151, 2009; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-39; (December 10, 2008).

Cotter, Thomas F. The essential facilities doctrine. 157 Antitrust law and economics (2010)

Denicolo, Vincenzo, Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar, A. Jorge Padilla, Revisiting Injunctive Relief: Interpreting eBay in High-Tech Industries with Non-Practicing Patent Holders, 4 J. Competition L. & Econ. 571, 590–91 (2008) Duffy, John F.: Rethinking the Prospect Theory of Patents, 71 U. CHI. L. REV. 439, 456-7 (2004)

Eisenberg, Rebecca S.: Intellectual Property at the Public Private Divide: The Case of Large-Scale DNA Sequencing, 3 U. CHI. L. SCH. ROUNDTABLE 557, 562 (1996)

(11)

IX Epstein, Richard A. & Kayvan B Noroozi: Why Incentives for 'Patent Holdout' Threaten to Dismantle FRAND, and Why It Matters (Berkeley Technology Law Journal, February 7, 2017)

Epstein, Richard A. and Kieff, F. Scott and Spulber, Daniel F., The FTC, IP, and SSOs: Government Hold-Up Replacing Private Coordination (August 5, 2011). Journal of Competition Law & Economics, March 2012

Farrell, Joseph, Hayes, John, Shapiro, Carl and Sullivan, Theresa, Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-up, 74 ANTITRUST L.J. 603, 603-04 (2007).

Fa-Shi, Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Infringement of Patent Rights (II) China Patent Agent (H.K.) Ltd, (2016)

Frankel, Kenneth M.: Patent Misuse After Federal Circuit’s Princo Decision En Banc The AIPLA Antitrust News (February 2011)

Fisher, William: Theories of Intellectual Property, in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Frankel, Kenneth M., Mark S. Zhai, A Return to the "Nine No-Noes" (The AIPLA Antitrust News Jan 2013)

Frech, H. Edward III: The Extended Coase Theorem and Long Run Equilibrium: The Non-Equivalence of Liability Rules and Property Rights, 27 254-268 Economic Inquiry, (1979)

FTC Report, The Evolving IP Marketplace, (March, 2011)

Fusco, Stefania, TRIPS Non-Discrimination Principle: Are Alice and Biliski Really the End of NPES? 24 Tex. Intell. Prop.

L.J. 131,136. (2016)

George, Gavin D. What Is Hiding in the Bushes-eBay’s Effect on Holdout Behaviour in Patent Thickets. 557 Mich.

Telecom. & Tech. L. Rev. 13 (2006)

Geradin, Damien, & Miguel Rato. Can standard-setting lead to exploitative abuse? A dissonant view on patent holdup, royalty stacking and the meaning of FRAND. 101-161 European Competition Journal 3.1 (2007)

Geradin, Damien and Layne-Farrar, Anne and Padilla, Jorge, Elves or Trolls? The Role of Non-Practicing Patent Owners in the Innovation Economy (May 2008). TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2008-018

Geradin, Damien, Reverse Hold-Ups: The (Often Ignored) Risks Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas (November 12, 2010)

Gergen, Mark P., John M. Golden & Henry E. Smith, The Supreme Court’s Accidental Revolution? The Test for Permanent Injunctions, 112 COLUM. L. REV. 203 (2012)

Gitter, Donna M.: The Conflict in the European Community Between Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: A Call for Legislative Clarification of the Essential Facilities Doctrine. American Business Law Journal 40.2 (2002)

Golden, John M.: Patent Trolls and Patent Remedies. 2111 Tex. L. Rev. 85 (2006)

Golden, John M.: Commentary, "Patent Trolls" and Patent Remedies, 85 (Tex. Law Rev., 2007)

Goter, Phillip W.: Princo, Patent Pools, and the Risk of Foreclosure: A Framework for Assessing Misuse, 699 Iowa L.

Rev. 96 (2010)

Haber, Alexander Stephen, Lew Zaretzki: A NEW DATASET ON MOBILE PHONE PATENT LICENSE ROYALTIES, Hoover Institution Working Group on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Prosperity Stanford University, (SEPTEMBER 25, 2016)

Haft, Dr. Klaus, Dr. Ralph Nack, Dr. Anja Lunze LL.M., Dr. ClemensAugust Heusch, Dr. Stefan Schohe, Björn Joachim Germany: Injunctions in cases of infringement, AIPPI Study Question Response (2011)

Heiden, Bowman and Petit, Nicolas, Patent 'Trespass' and the Royalty Gap: Exploring the Nature and Impact of Patent Holdout (June 6, 2017

Heller, M. A. & R. Eisenberg: Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research, Science 280 (1998)

Heusch, Clemens, Bjoern Joachim, Karsten Koeniger, Wolrad Prinz-Zu-Waldeck-und Pyrmont, Benjamin Raue, Tim Reinhard, Michael Schneider, Peter Slowinski, Ludwig Von-Zumbusch, Germany; Quantification of monetary relief AIPPI Study Question Response (2011)

Hughes, Justin: The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L.J. 287, (Dec 1988)

Jarosz, John C. & Michael J Chapman: The Hypothetical Negotiation and Reasonable Royalty Damages: The Tail Wagging the Dog, (16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 769, 2013)

Katznelson, Dr. Ron D. & Dr. John Howells: The Myth of the Early Aviation Patent Hold-UP-How a U.S. Government Monopsony, Commandeered Pioneer Airplane Patents, 1-64 Oxford Journals Industrial and Corporate Change Volume 24, Issue 1 (2015)

Kaur, Supreet, Interface Between Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Essential Facilities Doctrine, Electronic Copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=18002450

Kellenter, Wolfgang and Hengeler Mueller, Germany, in Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012, 2nd ed.

(Thompson Reuters, 2011)

Kieff, F. Scott & Troy A. Paredes: The Basics Matter: At the Periphery of Intellectual Property, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV.

174, 198 (2004)

Kieff, Scott & Layne-Farrar, Anne, Incentive Effects from Different Approaches to Holdup Mitigation Surrounding Patent Remedies and Standard-Setting Organizations, Journal of Competition Law and Economics 9.4 (2013) Killick, James, & Stratigoula Sakellariou, Huawei v ZTE: No More Need to Look at the Orange Book in SEP Disputes, (Antitrust Chronicle 10 (2015).

(12)

X Korah, Valentien: Intellectual Property Rights and EC Competition Rules (Hart Publishing, 2006)

Laycock, Douglas, Modern American Remedies: Cases and Materials (4th ed. 2010)

Layne-Farrar, Anne; A. Jorge Padilla, & Richard Schmalensee: Pricing patents for licensing in standard-setting organizations: Making sense of FRAND commitments. 671-706 Antitrust Law Journal 74.3 (2007)

Layne-Farrar, Anne, and Klaus M. Schmidt, "Licensing Complementary Patents:" Patent Trolls," Market Structure, and" Excessive" Royalties." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25.2 (2010)

Lemley, Mark A.: Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding. (Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, p. 1031, 2005) Lemley, Mark A. 'Ten things to do about patent holdup of standards (and one not to).' BCL Rev. 48 (2007) Lemley, Mark A., & Kimberly A. Moore. Ending abuse of patent continuations. 63 BUL rev. 84 (2004)

Lemley, Mark A. & Douglas A. Melamed: Missing the Forest for the Trolls, Columbia Law Review, (May 23, 2013) Lemley, Mark A. & Carl Shapiro, Probabilistic Patents, (19 J. ECON. PERSP., Spring 2005)

Lemley, Mark A. & Carl Shapiro: Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Texas L. Rev. 1991, 1993 (2007).

Lemley, Mark A. & Carl Shapiro: A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 28 1135-1166 (Berkeley Tech. L.J., 2013)

Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole: Efficient patent pools. 691-711 The American Economic Review 94.3 (2004) Li, Tao, Hong TAI, Dapeng Wen, Jiang Li, Dongli Zhang, Lizhe Jiang, Guigui Chen, Wenqing Li, Jiangbin Xie, Zhao Wang, Yanjie Zhen, Xince Sui, Lei Zheng, Lijun Zhao, Jian Zhou, Yongji Wei, China; Quantification of monetary relief AIPPI Study Question Response (2017)

Lim, Lily E. and Sarah E. Craven, Injunctions Enjoined: Remedies Restructured, 25 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 787 (2012)

Lin, Bonan, Jon Wood, & Soonhee Jang: Overview of Chinese Patent Law; 35th International Congress of the PIPA (2004)

Lichtman, Douglas, Patent Holdouts and the Standard-Setting Process (U Chicago Law and Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 292., May 16, 2006)

Liyang Hou; Qualcomm: How China has Invalidated Traditional Business Models on Standard Essential Patents. 7 (10), 686-689 (Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2016).

Long, Han, Liu Yungui and Lian Yunze, China, in Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012, 2nd ed. 83 (Thompson Reuters, 2011)

Mariniello, Mario. Fair: Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms: a challenge for competition authorities.

7.3, 523-541 Journal of Competition Law and Economics (2011)

Marquardt, Paul D., and Mark Leddy: The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A Response to Pitofsky, Patterson, and Hooks. 70.3 Antitrust Law Journal (2003)

Matthews, Duncan: Globalising Intellectual Property; TRIPs Agreement, (Routledge, 2002)

Maume, Philipp: Compulsory Licensing in Germany in Compulsory Licensing, Reto Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 22, (Springer, 2014)

Maume, Philipp: Huawei./. ZTE, or, how the CJEU closed the Orange Book. 207-226. (QUEEN MARY JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 6, no. 2, 2016)

Mayergoyz, Anna.: Lessons from Europe on How to Tame US Patent Trolls, 241 Cornell Int'l LJ42 (2009):.

McCraw, Thomas K.: Profits of Regulation, (Harvard University Press, 1984)

McDonough, James F.: The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 56, p. 189, (2006

Medical Daily: Name Brand Drugs Vs Generic Drugs: Does Price Reflect Effectiveness Rate of Drugs? (Aug 16, 2013) Melamed, A. Douglas and Shapiro, Carl, How Antitrust Law Can Make FRAND Commitments More Effective (January 2018). Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 510

Mello, J. P.: Technology Licensing and Patent Trolls BUJ Sci. & Tech. L. 12 (2006)

Merges, Robert P. & Richard R. Nelson: On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 839, 861 n.96 (1990)

Merges, Robert P.: Institutions for intellectual property transactions: the case of patent pools. University of California at Berkeley Working Paper (1999)

Merges, Robert P.: One Hundred Years of Solicitude: Intellectual Property Law, 1900–2000, 88 CAL. L. REV. 2187, 2222 (2000)

Merges, Robert P. Justifying Intellectual Property Rights, (Harvard University Press, 2011)

Middlemiss, Susie, United Kingdom, in Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012, 2nd ed. 465 (Thompson Reuters, 2011)

Monga, Amarjit Singh, Sagar Chandra, India: Relief in IP Proceedings other than injunction of Damages, AIPPI Study Question Response (2013)

Moore, Gordon E.: Cramming more components onto integrated circuits, Electronics Magazine, 4, (1965) Moss, Jonathan, Annsley Ward, Rafi Allos, Patrick Cantrill, Robert Hurst, Jin Oi, Charlotte Scott, Alice Stagg, United Kingdom; Quantification of monetary relief AIPPI Study Question Response (2017)

Mossoff, Adam: Exclusion and Exclusive Use in Patent Law, 322 (Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Spring 2009)

Mueller, Janice M. Patent misuse through the capture of industry standards.' Berkeley Tech. LJ 17 (2002): 623

(13)

XI Opi, Sergio Baches, The Application of the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Intellectual Property Licensing in the European Union and the United States: Are Intellectual Property Rights Still Sacrosanct. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media

& Ent. LJ 11 (2000)

Oliver, Geoffrey: Princo v. International Trade Commission: Antitrust Law and the Patent Misuse Doctrine Part Company, Antitrust, Vol. 25, No. 2, (ABA, Spring 2011)

Palmese, Maria Luisa, United States, in Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012, 2nd ed. 504 (Thompson Reuters, 2011)

Posner, Richard A.: Why There Are Too Many Patents in America, The Atlantic, (July, 2012) Rader, Chief Judge Randall R.: Comments on Intellectual property, IP Leaders Forum, (Aug. 15, 2012) Rahnasto, Ilkka: Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects and Anti-Trust Law: Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry, (Oxford University Press, 2003)

Rendleman, Doug, The Trial Judge’s Equitable Discretion Following eBay v. MercExchange, 27 REV. LITIG. 63 (2007) Risch, Michael: (Un) Reasonable Royalties, (Villanova Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Series, 2016) Ritter, Cyril. Refusal to Deal and Essential Facilities: Does Intellectual Property Require Special Deference Compared to Tangible Property. 28, 281 World Competition (2005):

Salomonowitz, Dr Sascha, Austria, in Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012, 2nd ed. 32 (Thompson Reuters, 2011)

Schechter, Peter C., David W. Hill, MaryAnne Armstrong, Patrick J. Coyne, Michael J. Frodsham, Charles J. Rogers, Elise J. Selinger, Joseph R. Snyder, John M. Carson, United States; Quantification of monetary relief AIPPI Study Question Response (2017)

Seaman, Christopher B.: Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After eBay: An Empirical Study 101 Iowa Law Review 1949 (2016)

Shapiro, Carl.: Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting, 119-150 Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1. (MIT Press, 2001)

Sichelman, Ted M.: Innovation Factors for Reasonable Royalties, 17 Legal Studies Research Paper (University of San Diego, 2017)

Singh, Amarjit, India: Injunctions in cases of infringement, AIPPI Study Question Response (2011) Solomon, Neal: Analysis of the ‘Four-Factor Test’ in Patent Cases Post-eBay (June 11, 2010).

Stern, Richard H., What are Reasonable and Non-Discrimanatory Terms for Licensing a Standard-essential patent?

European intellectual Property Review vol 37 Issue 9 (2015)

Sterpi, Massimo: Sterpi, Jacobacci; Regoli de Haas, Francetti; & Calame, Theirry, Patent Litigation Jurisdictional Comparisons 2012 2nd Ed (Thomson Reuters, 2011)

Streur, Stacy, The Effect: Tougher Standards but Courts Return to the Prior Practice of Granting Injunctions for Patent Infringement, 8 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 67 (2009)

Swanson, Daniel & Baumol, William, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power, 73 (2005) Antitrust Law Journal 1

Taylor, David O.: Using Reasonable Royalties to Value Patented Technologies, 79-162 (Georgia Law Review Vol, 49:79, 2014)

Turney, James: Defining the Limits of the EU Essential Facilities Doctrine on Intellectual Property Rights: The Primacy of Securing Optimal Innovation Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 3 (2004)

Vourinen, Jarkko: Beyond Patent Pools: Patent Thickets, Transaction Costs, Self Regulation and Competition. (IPR University Center, 2013)

Ward, Angela: Article 47, (I) in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, 1199 The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014)

Wild, Joff: The real inventors of the term "patent troll" revealed, Intellectual Asset Management Magazine. (August 22, 2008)

Wilson, Bruce B. Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen.: Remarks before the Fourth New England Antitrust Conference, Patent and Know-How License Agreements: Field of Use, Territorial, Price and Quantity Restrictions (Nov. 6, 1970).

Yang, Guoxu, Lei Wu, China: Injunctions in cases of infringement, AIPPI Study Question Response (2011)

Other: Books, Scholarly Articles, etc

Adams, Charles F.: A Chapter of Erie, (Boston, :J. R. Osgood and Company, 1871) Adams, John: Dissertation on Cannon and Feudal Law, Boston Gazette, (1765)

Alexander, Gregory S.: Property as a Fundamental Constitutional Right? The German Example Paper 4. Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers. (2003).

Altman, Daniel: Managing Globalization; Q&A with Joseph E. Stiglitz, (The International Herald Tribune, Oct. 11, 2006)

ARISTOTLE, Politics 330 BC, (Oxford, OUP 1998)

Arnold, Thurman W.: The Folklore of Capitalism (New Haven, Yale University Press,1937)

Attwater and Markle: Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law 19 Pac. L. J. 957, (1988)

(14)

XII Austin, M.M.: The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge University Press, 6 Jul 2006)

Baird, Douglas G., Robert H. Gartner and Randal C. Picker, Game Theory and the Law (Harvard University Press (1994)

Beresford, Maurice: The Lost Villages of England (Sutton Publishing, revised edition, 1998)

Bernanke, Ben: The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath, (W.W. Norton & Company 2015) Bittlingmayer, George: Property Rights, Progress, and the Aircraft Patent Agreement, 31, 227, 232-33 J.L. & Econ.

(1988).

Black's Law Dictionary 9 edition (West, 2009)

Blackstone, William: Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. (Oxford 1765-1769)

Blum, Jerome: The Internal Structure and Policy of the European Village Communities from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Century, Journal of Modern History, Vol. 43 (University of Chicago Press 1971) pp 541, 542) Boaz, David: Libertarianism: A Primer, (Free Press, 1998) 40, 185

Bork, Robert The Anti-Trust Paradox: The Antitrust Paradox, A Policy at War With Itself (New York: Free Press, 1978) Brazell, Lorna, Douglas Campbell, Ari Laakkonen, Rebecca Lawrence, Shobana Lyer, Charters Macdonald-Brown, Denise McFarlane, Jane Mutimear, Morag Peberdy, Richard Vary, United Kingdom: Injunctions in cases of infringement, AIPPI Study Question Response (2011)

Broberg, Morten and Niels Fenger:, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice, 2nd ed. 8 (Oxford University Press, 2014) p 156-221 Bork, Robert H.: The Antitrust Paradox, (New York: Free Press, 1978) Buchanan, James and Yoon, Yong: Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anti-Commons Journal of Law and Economics 43, (The University of Chicago Press, 2000)

Buckle, Stephen, Natural Law and the Theory of Property (Clarendon Press, 1991)

Burgess, Matt: South Korea's bribery scandal takes another turn: could it bring Samsung to its knees, (Wired, February 17, 2017)

Carpenter, David A. The Minority of Henry III. Berkeley, US and Los Angeles, US: (University of California Press.

1990).

Centennial of Flight Commission, Glenn Curtiss and the Wright Patent Battle, in U.S. Centennial of Flight (2003) Choi, William, Scott Dalrymple, and Daniel Jackson, “Don’t Shoot the Methodology: Misuse of Nash Bargaining,”

(Law360, 2014)

Clarke D. V., The Neolithic village at Skara Brae, Orkney, 1972-73 excavations. An interim report., Dept. of the Environment, (Edinburgh, H.M. Stationery Off., 1976)

Coase, Ronald H.: The Problem of Social Cost, 3 Journal of Law and Economics, (The University of Chicago Press, 1960) 1-44

Cooter, Robert D. & Thomas S Ulen: Law and Economics, Glenview, IL, Scott, Foresman and Company. (1988), Craig, Paul; de Búrca, Gráinne EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (3rd ed.). (Oxford University Press. 2003) Crouch, Tom D.: The Bishop’s Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright, (Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc., 2003) Darrow, Clarence, William O. Thompson, Special and Supplemental Report to the President. (1934)

Davidson, Nestor M., Rashmi Dyal-Chand, Property in Crisis, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1607, (2010)

Depoorter, B. F. Parisi, & N. Schulz: Fragmentation in Property: Towards a General Model, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics Model 159, (2003).

Diamond, Jared: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, (Viking Press 2006) Dibadj, Reza R.: Rescuing Regulation, (State University of New York Press 2006)

Digby, Kenelm Edward, An Introduction to the Law of Real Property orig. pub. in 1923 (Clarendon Press, 1975) Ehler, Sidney Z. and John b. Morrall, Church and State Through the Centuries (The Newman Press 1954)

Everson, Michele & Rui Correia Goncalves: Article 16, in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary 438 (Hart Publishing 2014)

Flux, Alexander, Social Conflicts in Ancient Greek, (Israel, Magnes Press New edition 1984) Friedman, Milton: Capitalism and Freedom, (The University of Chicago Press 1962)

Friedman, Milton: An Economist's Protest Second Edition (Thomas Horton & Daughters, 1975) Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman: Free to Choose, (Harcourt, 1980)

Garnsey, Peter: Thinking about Property; From Antiquity to the Age of Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

Getzler, Joshua: A History of Water Rights at Common Law (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Gies, Lieve: A Villains' Charter? The Press and the Human Rights Act, 167-183 Crime, Media, Culture, 7 (2) (Aug 2011)

Ghosh, Shubha: Exclusivity—The Roadblock to Democracy?, 50 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 799, 806 (2006)

Gould, George A., Douglas L. Grant and Gregory S. Weber: Case and Materials on Water Law (Thomson,2005) Greenwald, Bruce C. & Joseph E. Stiglitz: Externalities in Economies with Imperfect Information and Incomplete Markets, Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 1 Issue 2 (Oxford University Press, May 1986)

Grotius, Hugo, Mare Liberum (The Free Sea), (1609)

Hardin, Garrett: The Tragedy of the Commons, 1243-1248 Science Vol. 162, Issue 3859, (1968) Hayek, Fredrick: The Road to Serfdom 1944 (Routledge Press, UK) 1944 (University of Chicago Press, US)

(15)

XIII Heller, Michael: Gridlock Economy; How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation and Costs Lives, (Basic Books, 2008).

Heller, Michael: The Tragedy of the Anti-commons, Harvard Law Review. (1998)

Higham, Charles: Trading with the Enemy: the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 (Book Reader 1983) Hovenkamp, Herbert & Sheldon F. Kurtz: The Law of Property 5th eds. (West Publishing Co. 2001) Johnston, Craig N., William F. Funk & Victor B. Flatt: Legal Protection of the Environment (Thomson, 2005) Josephson, Matthew: The Robber Barons, 1934 (Mariner Books,1962)

Justinian: The Digest of Roman Law translated by C.F Colbert (Penguin Books, 1979)

Kahn, Alfred E.: The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1970) Kant, Immanuel, 1724-1804, Critique of Practical Reason, originally Published in 1788 (Dover Publications 2004) Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysical Elements of Justice, 1787 (John Ladd. Hackett Publishing, 1999)

Kelly, Fred C.: The Wright Brothers: A Biography (Harcourt Brace, 1943)

Keynes, John Maynard: A Treatise on Probability, (Macmillan & Co., 1921) (London, Forgotten Books, 2012) Keynes, John Maynard, The Means to Prosperity (London, Macmillan and Co., 1933)

Keynes, John Maynard: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. (Palgrave Macmillan, 1936) Kiernan, K. M.: The Wright Brothers vs. The World, 21(3) The Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, (2012)

Kramer, Bruce M, & Owen L. Anderson: The Rule of Capture- An Oil and Gas Perspective, Environmental Law Vol. 35 Iss. 4 (2005);

Kramer, Samuel Noah, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press;

New edition 1971)

Krier, Dukeminier & Alexander Schill: Property 6th eds 8 (Aspen Publishers, 2002)

Kuntz, Eugene O, John S. Lowe, Owen L Anderson & Ernest E. Smith: Cases and Material on Oil and Gas Law (West Publishing, 1993)

Lenaerts, Koen & Jose Antonio Gutierrez: The Place of the Charter in EU Constitutional Edifice, in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014)

Libertarianism, John Locke, Available at: www.libertarianism.org/columns/john-locke-justification-private-property, (last viewed on 26.11.2013)

Locke, John: Two Treatises of Government, (Awnsham Churchill, 1689)(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)

Maduro, Miguel Poiares and Loic Azoulai: The Past and Future of EU Law (Hart Publishing 2010)

Maher, Debbah: EC and UK Competition Law: Commentary, Cases and Materials, 55-95 (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Maitland, Frederic W. and Francis Montague: A Sketch of English Legal History org. pub. in 1915 (The Law Book Exchange 2009)

Makin, Eric S.: Recent Developments in Game Theory (Edward Elgar Publishing, 1999) Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (London, Communist League 1848) Mckinstry, Leo: Human right's act has become the villain's charter, (Express Oct. 3 2011)

Medema, Steven G. & Richard O Zerbe: Coase Theorem, Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics (Bouckaert & De Geest 1999)

Merril, Thomas W.: Property: Principles and Policies (Foundation Press, 2007) Michael, John, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps), (UCD Press 1861)

Michelman, F. I.: Property, Utility and Fairness. Comment on the Ethical Foundations of Just Compensation Law, Harvard Law Review (1982)

Mishel, Lawrence Elise Gould, & Josh Bivens, Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts, (Economic Policy Institute, Jan 6^th 2015)

Monti, Giorgio: EC Competition Law 325-327 (Cambridge University Press, 2007) Morris, Richard B.: Emergence of American Labor, (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005) Motta, Massimo: Competition Policy: Practice and Theory (Cambridge University Press 2004) Neumann, Manfred, Competition Policy, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001)

Möllers, Thomas, & Andreas Hainemann: The Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe, (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

Munzer, Stephen: New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge University Press, 2001) Murphy, Blakely M.: Conservation of Oil and Gas (Arno Press, 1972)

Neumann, Manfred: Competition Policy, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001) Nozick, Robert: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, (New York: Basic Books, 1974) NY Times: The Rise and Fall of Pithole, (Dec 24, 1879)

Paganelli, Maria P.: Adam Smith and the History of Economic Thought: The Case of Banking. In R. Hanley (Ed.), Adam Smith: A Princeton Guide. (Princeton University Press.2016)

Parkin, Michael, Melanie Powell, & Kent Matthews: Economics, Fifth Edition, (Addison-Westley Publishing 2000) Peers, Steve, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, & Angela Ward: The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014)

(16)

XIV Peritz, Rudolph J. R.: Competition Policy in America 1888-1992: History, Rhetoric, Law (Oxford University Press 1996)

Pfeiffer, F.: Rheinische Transitzoelle im Mittelalter. [Rhein Transit Tolls in the Middle Ages]. (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1997)

Plato, The Republic, Chapter 5, original script form 300 BC, (Penguin Books Ltd; 2nd edition Nov. 1974) Polo, Marko: The Book of Marko Polo (1295)

Pitofksy, Robert; Donna Patterson, and Jonathan Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law 443 Antitrust Law Journal 70 (2002)

Polinsky, A. Mitchell: Economic Analysis as a Potentially Defective Product: A Buyer’s Guide to Posner’s Economic Analysis of Law, 87 Harvard Law Review, 1655-1681 (1974)

Posner, Richard A.: Legal Scholarship Today, 115 Harvard Law Review 1314, (Harvard Press, Mar-2002) Posner, Richard A.: A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression, (Harvard University Press, 2009)

Posner, Richard A.: Economic Analysis of Law, 4th ed. (Boston, Little Brown and Co.,1992) Posner, Richard A.: How Judges Think, (Harvard University Press, 2011)

Pufendorf, Samuel Elementa Jurisprudentiae Universalis (1660) Pufendorf, Samuel, De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1672).

Radin, Margaret Jane: Reinterpreting Property, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993)

Raines, Rebecca Robbins, The Signal Corps Takes to the Air, in Getting the Message Through, (Center of Military History, 2006)

Rasmusen, Eric B.: Game Theory and the Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007)

Reagan, President Ronald, Remarks to Representatives of the Future Farmers of America, (July 28, 1988) Reed, Lawrence W.: Great Myths of the Great Depression (Atlanta, Foundation for Economic Education, 2010) Regan, Donald H., The Problem of Social Cost Revisited, 15 Journal of Law and Economics, (1972)

Ronneberg, D. T.: The Wright Brothers' Patent Lawsuits. 21(3) The Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education &

Research, (2012).

Rotunda, Ronald: Modern Constitutional Law 7th edition (West Group, 2003)

Rose, Carol M.: The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property, Faculty Scholarship Series.Paper 1828. (1986)

Roseberry, Cecil R.: Glenn Curtiss: Pioneer of Flight, 62 (Syracuse University Press, 1972)(Syracuse Univ Press;

Reprint edition (August 1, 1991)

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Donald A. Cress (Translator), Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les homes originally published 1754, Discourse on the Origin of Inequalit, (translated version Hackett Publishing, 13 Mar 1992)

Röpke, Wilhelm: The Social Crisis of Our Times first published (Switzerland, Eugen Rentsch Verlag 1942), Chicago University of Chicago Press 1960)

Rubin, Edward L.: Due Process and the Administrative State, 72 CAL. L. REV. 1044, 1086 (1984)

Schwab, Stewart J.: A Coasean Experiment on Contract Presumptions, 17 237-268 Journal of Legal Studies, (1988) Schumpeter, Joseph A.: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, [orig. pub. 1942] (New York: Harper, 1975) Scott, Anthony & Georgina Coustalin: The Evolution of Water Rights Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 35, 835 (University of New Mexico School of Law, 1995)

Scott, Anthony: The Evolution of Resource Property Rights (Oxford University Press, 2008) Semper: Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, (On Second Thought 2014) Last viewed (November 30, 2016) Shelton, Dinah, Article 47, (II) in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014)

Shirer, William: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, A History of Nazi Germany (Simon & Schuster 1960) Sidak, Gregory J. and Danial F. Spulber: Deregulatory Taking and Regulatory Contract (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

Sidak, J. Gregory & Abbott B. Lipsky: Essential Facilities, 1187-1249 (Stanford Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 5, 1999) Slater, Scott: California Water Law and Policy, 62 Cal.Jur.3d, Water, (1995)

Smith, Adam: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (Scotland, William Strahan and Tomas Cadell, 1776)

Smith, Adam: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759. (Library of Economics and Liberty, 30 November 2016.) Smith, Roger J.: Property Law 5th eds (Pearson Education Limited, 2006)

Society of Petroleum Engineers: 1957–69: The Early Years, (2007) Sorkin, Ross: Too Big to Fail, (Viking Press, 2009):

Stigler, George: The Theory of Economic Regulation, The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science Vol. 2, No. 1, 3-21 (Rand Corporation, 1971)

Szakalski, Dustin R.: Progress in the Aircraft Industry and the Role of Patent Pools and Cross Licensing Agreements, Journal of Law and Technology Vol 15-1 (2011)

Texas Railroad Commission, “Chronological Listing of Key Events in the History of the Railroad Commission of Texas (1866-1939)”, (1999)

Thatcher, Prime Minister Margaret: The Path to Power, (New York: Harper Collins, 1995)

(17)

XV Thurston, Robert Henry: A History of the Growth of the Steam-engine, (D. Appleton, 1878)

Thompson, E. P.: The Making of the English Working Class (Penguin, New Edition, 1991) Transparency International: People and Corruption: Asia Pacific (2017)

Trevelyan, Sir Charles: Letter to Edward Twisleton, Chief Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland, (1846)

Turner, Donald F.: The Validity of Tying Arrangements under the Antitrust Laws, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 1.

(Harvard Law Review Association, 1958)

Vogel, Kenneth R.: The Coase Theorem and California Animal Trespass Law, 16, 149-187 Journal of Legal Studies, (The University of Chicago Press, 1987)

Waldron, Jeremy, The Right to Private Property, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988).

Whish, Richard: Competition Law, Fifth Addition (Oxford Press, 2005)

Wollenschläger, Ferdinand: Article 17 (1), in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014)

Woods, Lorna, Article 54, in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014)

Wyatt, Lance, Keeping Up with the Game: The Use of the Nash Bargaining Solution in Patent Infringement Cases, 31 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 427 (2015).

Yergin, Daniel, The Prize (Simon and Schuster, 1991)

Zuse, Horst: The Life and Work of Konrad Zuse, (Zuse-Institute Berlin 1973)

Other Sources

Apple Inc. Annual Report, 2015 Chicago Tribune Editorial (Sept 15, 1933)

Gartner, Smartphone Market Report Press Release, Egham, UK, (August 19, 2016)

Goodman, David J. and Robert Myers: 3G CELLULAR STANDARDS AND PATENTS, IEEE Wireless Com (2005) National Recovery Review Board: First report to the President of the United States (1934)

National Recovery Review Board: Third report to the President of the United States (1934)

Peel, Michael: Little love for a 'villain’s' charter' in a land of unwritten rules, (Financial Times, July 24, 2006);

Pope Alexander VI, the Inter Caetera Divinai (1493).

Pope Nicholas V, Romanus Pontifex, (1455)

Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont, (1095) Pope Innocent III (August 24, 1215)

Research in Motion, Press Release, Mar 3, 2006 Research in Motion, Annual Report, 2005

Roosevelt, President Franklin D.: Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) National Industrial Recovery Act, Section 1, (1933)

Roosevelt, President Franklin D.: State of the Union Address (3 January 1938)

Standard and Poor’s Analysis: email on subprime loans “Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters”, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (2008)

The New York Times: Big Men of Finance Back of the Wrights, (Nov 19, 1909) Time Magazine, In Times Like These (Oct 5^th, 1931)

Time Magazine Man of the Year (Jan 2, 1933)

Time Magazine, National Affairs: Who’s Next, (Sept 25, 1933) Time Magazine, Dollar Men and Prices, (Jan 1935)

The Bible: Mathew 28:19

The Federal Reserve Bulletin, p. 728, (1929)

U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the United States: From Colonial Times to 1970 (1975) The New York Times: Microsoft and Europe Agree Software Remedy Has Failed (April 25, 2006) US Patent Office, Patent Report (2012)

Case Law

British and American

Bury v. Pope, Cro. Eliz. 118 [78 Eng. Rep. 375] (1587) Matthew W. Irwin v. Robert Phillips, 5 Cal. 140 (1855).

Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 322, 327-28 (1858);

Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. 357 (1862) Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. St. 142 (1875) Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877) Lux v. Haggin (1886) 69 Cal. 255 [10 P. 674].)

(18)

XVI Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886)

The Penfield Company of California vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Circuit Court at San Francisco August 29^th, (1887)

Gould v. Eaton, 111 Cal. 639, 44 Pac. 319, 52 Am. St. Rep. 201; (1896) Westmoreland & Cambria Natural Gas Co. v. Dewitt 18 A. 724 (Pa. 1889) Jamieson v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co., 28 N.E.76 (Ind. 1891) In re. Corning 51 F. 205 (N.D. Ohio 1892).

In re. Greene, 52 F. 104 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1892).

Hague v Wheeler, 27 A. 714 (Pa. 1893) Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665, 669-70 (1895) Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 161 U. S. 525 (1896) Townsend v. State, 147 Ind. 624, 37 L.R.A. 294, 49 N.E. 14 (1897) Kelley v. Ohio Oil Co, 49 N.E. 399 (Ohio 1897)

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897).

Interstate Commerce Commission v Cincinnati, N.O. & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 167 U.S. 459 (1897) United States v. Joint Traffic Ass’n, 171 U.S. 505 (1898).

Del Monte Min. & Mill. Co. V. Last Chance Min. & Mill. Co. 171 U.S. 60, 43 L. Ed. 74, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 895 (1898) City of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597, 57 Pac. 585. (1899)

Railroad Co. v. Dufour, 95 Cal. 616, 30 Pac. 783, 19 L.R.A. 92; (1900) Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana - 177 U.S. 190 (1900)

Hanson v. McCue, 42 Cal. 303, 10 Am. Rep. 299; (1901) Katz v. Walkinshaw 141 Cal. 138, 70 Pac. 663 (1902) Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116 (Cal. 1903) Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116 (Cal. 1903) Strong v. Repide, 213 U.S. 419 (1909)

Wright v. Herring Curtiss. 177 F. 257 (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1910) Wright v. Herring Curtiss. 180 F. 110 (C.C.A. 2d 1910) Wright v. Paulham. 177 F. 261 (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1910)

Wright Company Patent Litigation Briefs; Wright v. Paulham; Toulmin, H. A. (1910) Wright v. Claude Grahame (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1910)

Wright v. Aero Corp 128 F. 726 (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1911) Wright v. Herring Curtiss. 204 F. 597 (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1913) Wright v. Herring Curtiss. 211 F. 654 (C.C.A. 2d 1914) Wright v. Herring Curtiss. 177 F. 257 (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1910) Wright v. Herring Curtiss. 177 F. 257 (C.C.W.D.N.Y. 1910) Wright Company v. Herring Curtiss 180 F. 110 (C.C.A. 2d 1910) Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 US 1 (1912)

Wright Company v. Herring Curtiss 204 F. 605 (C.C.A. 2d 1913) United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202 (1913)

Goodwin Film & Camera Co. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 213 F. 231 (1914)

PAWHUSKA OIL & GAS CO. v. CITY OF PAWHUSKA, OK 443, 148 P. 118, 47 Okla. 342 (1914) Wright v. Herring-Curtiss. 211 F. 655; (C.C.A. 2d 1914)

Harris v. City of Louisville, 165 Ky. 559, 177 S.W. 472 (1915); Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 165 Ky. 559, 177 S. W.

472, Ann. Cas. (1917)

Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Corp., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) BUCHANAN v. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60 (1917)

United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U.S. 32 (1918) United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 307 (1919)

Motion Pictures Patent Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co. 243 U.S. 502 (1917);

Texas Company v. Daugherty et al., 107 Tex. 226, 176 S.W. 717, 718, L.R.A.1917F, 989 (1921) Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Co,200 Cal. 81, (1926)

Oxford Oil Co. v. Atlantic Oil Co., 22 F.2d 597 (1927)

Marrs v. City of Oxford, 32 F. 2d 134 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (1929)

C. C. JULIAN OIL & ROYALTIES CO. v. CAPSHAW et al, OK 452, 292 P. 841, 145 Okla. 237 (1930) C. C. JULIAN OIL & ROYALTIES CO. v. CAPSHAW, Special Concurring Opinion

Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U.S. 27 (1931) Fox Film Corp. v Doyal, 286 U.S.123, 127-128 (1932)

GIN S. CHOW v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, 217 Cal. 673, (Cal. 1933) Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 (1933) Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1933) Purvis v. Bazemore, 5 F. Supp. 230 (S. D. Fla. 1933)

Manufacturers Aircraft Ass'n, Inc. v. The United States, 77 C. Cls., at 481, 484 (1933) Nebbia v. New York 291 U.S. 502 (1934)

(19)

XVII Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 293 U.S. 388 (1935)

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935) Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

Edwards v. Sims Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 265 Ky. ¤18, 96 S.W.2d 1028 (1936), United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo 298 U.S. 587 (1936) West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937) Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 (1940).

United States v. General Motors Corp., 121 F.2d 376 (1941) Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942)

National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co., 137 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1943) Transparent-Wrap Mach. Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U.S. 637, 643 (1947) International Salt Co., Inc. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947)

United States v. Besser Mfg, Co., 96 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. Mich. 1951) Lorain Journal Co. V. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 146-49 (1951) United States v. Krasnov, 143 F. Supp. 184 (E.D. Pa. 1956) Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964)

United States v. Container Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333, 341 (1969)

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1119-20 (1970) Monsanto Co., v. Rohm & Haas Co. 456 F.2d 592 (1972)

Niles Sand & Gravel Co. v. Alameda County Water Dist. [37 Cal. App. 3d 924] (1974) United States v. Mfrs. Aircraft Ass’n, Inc., 1975 WL 814, at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 1975).

Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980) Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2nd 1340,1342 (Fed Cir. 1983) MCI Comm. Corp v. AT&T, 708 F.2^nd 1081, 1132-33 (7^th Cir. 1983)

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. V. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1520-1521 (10^th Cir. 1984) Aspen Skiing Co. V. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 611 (1985)

Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1246-47 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 461 (1992) Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1995 U.S. App., 35 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1065 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 1995) United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-571, 86 S. Ct 1698. 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1996)

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, (Fed. Cir. 1998) AT&T v. Iowa Utils Bd. 525 U.S. 366 (1999)

MercExchange, LLc v. eBay, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Va. 2002) MercExchange, LLc v. eBay, Inc., 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Va. 2003)

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 270 F. Supp. 2d 751 - Dist. Court, ED Virginia (2003) Verizon Comunications v Law Offices of Curtis and Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004) U.S. Philips Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 424 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2005) eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LLC, 126 S. Ct. 733 (2005)

Mercexchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F. 3d 1282 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2005)

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and Snaptrack, Inc., v. NOKIA CORPORATION and Nokia, Inc., No 2006-1317 (2006) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006)

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LL.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) Chief Justice Robert, Concurring Opinion MERCEXCHANGE, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 556 (E.D. Va. 2007)

Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Global-Tech Appliances Inc. et al. v. SEB SA, 563 U.S.754 (2011) Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011)

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Laserdynamics v. Quanta Computer, Inc. 694 F.3d 51 (2012)

Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al APPLE, INC. and NeXT SOFTWARE INC., v. MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., No. 1:11-cv-08540, OPINION and ORDER of June 22, (2012)

Core Wireless v. LG Electronics, 2:14-cv-912, Dkt. 47 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2016).

Case No: HP-2014-00005 Unwired Planet International Ltd and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. decided 05/04/2017 Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Case 5:17-cv-00220 (01/17/17)

European and Rest of World

Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963)

Correlated Intellectual Property Rights : A Foundational Solution to the Problems of Patent Holdup and Patent Holdout