Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:56:38.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2021

Simon Brinsmead
Simon Brinsmead
Affiliation:
Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s Department (Australia)
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Essential Interoperability Standards
Interfacing Intellectual Property and Competition in International Economic Law
 , pp. 356 - 394
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (adopted 12 April 1979, entered into force 1 January 1980) 1186 UNTS 276 (Tokyo Round Standards Code)Google Scholar
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Annex 1 A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1868 UNTS 120 (TBT Agreement)Google Scholar
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299 (TRIPS Agreement)Google Scholar
Annex on Telecommunications to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Annex 1B to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 214 (GATS Annex on Telecommunications)Google Scholar
Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, A/CN4/SERA/2001/Add1 (Part 1))Google Scholar
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (adopted 14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970) 828 UNTS 5 (WIPO Convention)Google Scholar
Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (adopted 21 November 1997, entered into force 15 February 1999) 37 ILM 1 (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention)Google Scholar
‘Decisions and Recommendations Adopted by the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade since 1 January 1995’ (World Trade Organization, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade 2011) WTO Doc G/TBT/1/Rev.13 <https://docs.wto.org>>Google Scholar
Doha WTO Ministerial Declaration, 20 November 2001, WTO Doc WTMIN01DEC1 (Doha Ministerial Declaration)Google Scholar
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Annex 1 A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1867 UNTS 190 (GATT 1994)Google Scholar
General Agreement on Trade in Services, Annex 1B to Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 183 (GATS)Google Scholar
Geneva Ministerial Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce, 20 May 1998, WTO Doc WTMIN98DEC2 (Declaration of Global Electronic Commerce)Google Scholar
International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (adopted 26 October 1961, entered into force 18 May 1964) 496 UNTS 43 (Rome Convention)Google Scholar
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1867–1869 UNTS (WTO Agreement)Google Scholar
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Technology Products (Information Technology Agreement) 1996 (WTO Doc WT/MIN (96)/16)Google Scholar
Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (opened for signature 31 December 2016, entered into force 1 July 2018) <www.oecd.org> accessed 27 April 2019+accessed+27+April+2019>Google Scholar
Paris Act relating to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted September 9, 1886, entered into force 5 December 1887, as revised at Paris, 24 July 1971, entered into force 15 December 1972) (331 UNTS 219) (Berne Convention)Google Scholar
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20 March 1883, entered into force 7 July 1884, as revised at Stockholm, 14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970) (828 UNTS 305) (Paris Convention)Google Scholar
Patent Law Treaty (adopted 1 June 2000, entered into force 28 April 2005) 2340 UNTS 3 (Patent Law Treaty)Google Scholar
Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (adopted 26 May 1989) (28 ILM 1484)(Washington Treaty on Integrated Circuits)Google Scholar
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT)Google Scholar
WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002) 2186 UNTS 5 (WCT)Google Scholar
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 20 May 2002) 2186 UNTS 203 (WPPT)Google Scholar
WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, 5th session, Draft Regulations and Practice Guidelines under the Draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (2001)Google Scholar
WTO Decision of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the Agreement 2000 (G/TBT/9)Google Scholar
WTO, Doha WTO Ministerial, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (20 November 2001), WTO Doc WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1Google Scholar
Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (Draft for Comment) (23 March 2017) <http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/> accessed 18 May 2020, 公开征求《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》的意见+accessed+18+May+2020,+公开征求《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》的意见>Google Scholar
Anti-Monopoly Law (Promulgated by Order No. 68 of 30 August, 2007) of the People’s Republic of China, 中华人民共和国反垄断法Google Scholar
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to the Decision of 26 February 2010, by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Copyright Law of the Peoples’ Republic of China), 中华人民共和国著作权法 1990Google Scholar
General Principles of Civil Law (1986, amended 2010), 中华人民共和国民法通则Google Scholar
Law of the People’s Republic of China against Unfair Competition (as revised at the 30th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress on 4 November 2017), 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法 1993Google Scholar
Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to the Decision of 27 December 2008, regarding the Revision of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国专利法 1985Google Scholar
Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits (Decree No. 300 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国集成电路布图设计保护条例 2001Google Scholar
Regulations on Computer Software Protection (as amended up to Decision of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China of 30 January 2013), 2002 (计算机软件保护条例)Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (adopted 12 April 1979, entered into force 1 January 1980) 1186 UNTS 276 (Tokyo Round Standards Code)Google Scholar
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Annex 1 A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1868 UNTS 120 (TBT Agreement)Google Scholar
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299 (TRIPS Agreement)Google Scholar
Annex on Telecommunications to the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Annex 1B to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 214 (GATS Annex on Telecommunications)Google Scholar
Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, A/CN4/SERA/2001/Add1 (Part 1))Google Scholar
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (adopted 14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970) 828 UNTS 5 (WIPO Convention)Google Scholar
Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (adopted 21 November 1997, entered into force 15 February 1999) 37 ILM 1 (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention)Google Scholar
‘Decisions and Recommendations Adopted by the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade since 1 January 1995’ (World Trade Organization, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade 2011) WTO Doc G/TBT/1/Rev.13 <https://docs.wto.org>>Google Scholar
Doha WTO Ministerial Declaration, 20 November 2001, WTO Doc WTMIN01DEC1 (Doha Ministerial Declaration)Google Scholar
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Annex 1 A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1867 UNTS 190 (GATT 1994)Google Scholar
General Agreement on Trade in Services, Annex 1B to Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 183 (GATS)Google Scholar
Geneva Ministerial Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce, 20 May 1998, WTO Doc WTMIN98DEC2 (Declaration of Global Electronic Commerce)Google Scholar
International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (adopted 26 October 1961, entered into force 18 May 1964) 496 UNTS 43 (Rome Convention)Google Scholar
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1867–1869 UNTS (WTO Agreement)Google Scholar
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Technology Products (Information Technology Agreement) 1996 (WTO Doc WT/MIN (96)/16)Google Scholar
Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (opened for signature 31 December 2016, entered into force 1 July 2018) <www.oecd.org> accessed 27 April 2019+accessed+27+April+2019>Google Scholar
Paris Act relating to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted September 9, 1886, entered into force 5 December 1887, as revised at Paris, 24 July 1971, entered into force 15 December 1972) (331 UNTS 219) (Berne Convention)Google Scholar
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20 March 1883, entered into force 7 July 1884, as revised at Stockholm, 14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970) (828 UNTS 305) (Paris Convention)Google Scholar
Patent Law Treaty (adopted 1 June 2000, entered into force 28 April 2005) 2340 UNTS 3 (Patent Law Treaty)Google Scholar
Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (adopted 26 May 1989) (28 ILM 1484)(Washington Treaty on Integrated Circuits)Google Scholar
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT)Google Scholar
WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002) 2186 UNTS 5 (WCT)Google Scholar
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 20 May 2002) 2186 UNTS 203 (WPPT)Google Scholar
WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, 5th session, Draft Regulations and Practice Guidelines under the Draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (2001)Google Scholar
WTO Decision of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the Agreement 2000 (G/TBT/9)Google Scholar
WTO, Doha WTO Ministerial, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (20 November 2001), WTO Doc WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1Google Scholar
Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (Draft for Comment) (23 March 2017) <http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/> accessed 18 May 2020, 公开征求《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》的意见+accessed+18+May+2020,+公开征求《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》的意见>Google Scholar
Anti-Monopoly Law (Promulgated by Order No. 68 of 30 August, 2007) of the People’s Republic of China, 中华人民共和国反垄断法Google Scholar
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to the Decision of 26 February 2010, by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Copyright Law of the Peoples’ Republic of China), 中华人民共和国著作权法 1990Google Scholar
General Principles of Civil Law (1986, amended 2010), 中华人民共和国民法通则Google Scholar
Law of the People’s Republic of China against Unfair Competition (as revised at the 30th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress on 4 November 2017), 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法 1993Google Scholar
Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to the Decision of 27 December 2008, regarding the Revision of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国专利法 1985Google Scholar
Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits (Decree No. 300 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国集成电路布图设计保护条例 2001Google Scholar
Regulations on Computer Software Protection (as amended up to Decision of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China of 30 January 2013), 2002 (计算机软件保护条例)Google Scholar
Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (Draft for Comment) (23 March 2017) <http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/> accessed 18 May 2020, 公开征求《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》的意见+accessed+18+May+2020,+公开征求《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南（征求意见稿）》的意见>Google Scholar
Anti-Monopoly Law (Promulgated by Order No. 68 of 30 August, 2007) of the People’s Republic of China, 中华人民共和国反垄断法Google Scholar
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to the Decision of 26 February 2010, by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Copyright Law of the Peoples’ Republic of China), 中华人民共和国著作权法 1990Google Scholar
General Principles of Civil Law (1986, amended 2010), 中华人民共和国民法通则Google Scholar
Law of the People’s Republic of China against Unfair Competition (as revised at the 30th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress on 4 November 2017), 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法 1993Google Scholar
Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended up to the Decision of 27 December 2008, regarding the Revision of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国专利法 1985Google Scholar
Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits (Decree No. 300 of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国集成电路布图设计保护条例 2001Google Scholar
Regulations on Computer Software Protection (as amended up to Decision of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China of 30 January 2013), 2002 (计算机软件保护条例)Google Scholar
Abbate, J., Inventing the Internet (MIT Press 1999)Google Scholar
Akman, P., The Concept of Abuse in European Competition Law: Law and Economic Approaches (Hart Publishing 2012)Google Scholar
Band, J. and Katoh, M., Interfaces on Trial (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado 1995)Google Scholar
Band, J. and Katoh, M. Interfaces on Trial 2.0 (MIT Press 2011)Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J., Free Market Innovation Machine (Princeton University Press 2002)Google Scholar
Blind, K., The Economics of Standards: Theory, Evidence, Policy (Edward Elgar 2004)Google Scholar
Bork, R. H., The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (The Free Press, 2nd ed., 1993)Google Scholar
Cottier, T., Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Veron, P. (eds.), Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (3rd ed., Kluwer Law International 2015)Google Scholar
Cournot, A., Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, 1838 (Nathaniel T Bacon tr., MacMillan 1929)Google Scholar
Cox, C., An Introduction to LTE: LTE, LTE-Advanced, SAE and 4 G Mobile Communications (1st ed., John Wiley & Sons 2012)Google Scholar
Crane, R., The Politics of International Standards: France and the Color TV War (Communication and Information Science) (Ablex Publishing 1979)Google Scholar
Dahlmann, E., Parkvall, S. and Skold, J., 4G: LTE/LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband (2nd ed., Academic Press 2014)Google Scholar
Eijo, O. and others, Advanced Internet Protocols, Services and Innovations (John Wiley & Sons 2012)Google Scholar
Epstein, R., Principles for a Free Society (Perseus Publishing 1998)Google Scholar
Esser, J., Vorverständnis Und Methodenwahl (Athenäum-Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag 1972)Google Scholar
Ezrachi, A., EU Competition Law Guide: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases (Hart Publishing 2014)Google Scholar
Gasser, U. and Palfrey, J., Interoperability: The Promise and Perils of Highly Connected Systems (Basic Books 2012)Google Scholar
Gerber, D. J., Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (Oxford University Press 1998)Google Scholar
Gervais, D., The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (2nd ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2003)Google Scholar
Gibson, J. D. (ed.), Mobile Communications Handbook (3rd ed., CRC Press 2013)Google Scholar
Harvard Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Hookway, B., Interface (MIT Press 2014)Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., The Antitrust Enterprise (Harvard University Press 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., Janis, M. D. and Lemley, M. A., IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Practices Applied to Intellectual Property Law (1st ed., Wolters Kluwer 2002)Google Scholar
Jones, A. and Sufrin, B., EU Competition Law (5th ed., Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar
Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A., The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Levinson, M., The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger (2nd ed., Princeton University Press 2016)Google Scholar
Neale, A. D., The Antitrust Laws of the United States of America: A Study of Competition Enforced by Law (2nd ed., 1970)Google Scholar
Olsen, M., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard University Press 1965)Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., An Introduction to Law and Economics (4th ed., Wolters Kluwer 2011)Google Scholar
Posner, R., Antitrust Law (2nd ed., University of Chicago Press 2001)Google Scholar
Ruse-Khan, H. G., The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law (Oxford University Press Oxford 2016)Google Scholar
Schindler, D. and Toman, J., The Laws of Armed Conflicts (Martinus Nihjoff 1988)Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H., Information Rules (Harvard Business Press 1998)Google Scholar
Shavell, S., Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law (Belknap Press 2004)Google Scholar
Spurgeon, C., Ethernet: The Definitive Guide (O’Reilly Media Inc 2000)Google Scholar
Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press 2013)Google Scholar
Tirole, J., The Theory of Industrial Organization (MIT Press 1988)Google Scholar
Viehweg, T., Topics and Law (Peter Lang 1993)Google Scholar
Villarreal, A. B., International Standardization and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (Cambridge University Press 2018)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization, Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971) (World Intellectual Property Organization 1978)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization Implications of the TRIPS Agreement on Treaties Administered by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization 2002)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm (1967), vol. 1 (World Intellectual Property Organization 1971)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm (1967), vol. 2 (World Intellectual Property Organization 1971)Google Scholar
Bakhoum, M. and Gallego, B. C., ‘TRIPS and Competition Rules: From Transfer of Technology to Innovation Policy’ in Ullrich, Hanns and others (eds.), TRIPS plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016)Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. and Woodard, C. J., ‘The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View’ in Gawer, Annabelle (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation (Edward Elgar, 2009)Google Scholar
Behrens, P., ‘The Ordoliberal Concept of “Abuse” of a Dominant Position and Its Impact on Article 102 TFEU’ in di Porto, Fabiana and Podszun, Rupprecht (eds.) (Edward Elgar 2018)Google Scholar
Blind, K., ‘From Standards to Quality Infrastructure’ in Delimatsis, Panagiotis (ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardisation (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Bradford, A., ‘International Antitrust Cooperation and the Preference for Nonbinding Regimes’ in Guzman, Andrew T. (ed.), Cooperation, Comity and Competition Policy (Oxford University Press 2011)Google Scholar
Burk, D. L. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Designing Optimal Software Patents’ in Hahn, Robert W. (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology (AEI Press 2005)Google Scholar
Codding, Jr. G. A., ‘Three Times Forty: The ITU in a Time of Change’ in Finkelstein, Lawrence S. (ed.), Politics in the International System (Duke University Press 1988)Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L., ‘Essentiality and Standards-Essential Patents’ in Contreras, Jorge L. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust, and Patents (Cambridge University Press 2017)Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L. ‘Injunctive Relief in US Patent Cases’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Cotropia, C. A., ‘Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States’ Decision in EBay v. MercExchange in Dinwoodie, Graeme and Janis, Mark D. (eds.), Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2009)Google Scholar
Cottier, T., ‘Embedding Intellectual Property in International Law’ in Roffe, Pedro and Seuba, Xavier (eds.), Current Alliances in International Intellectual Property Law Rulemaking: The Emergence and Impact of Mega-Regionals, vol. 4 (ICTSD/SEPI 2017)Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Germann, C., ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ in Veron, Pierre and Cottier, Thomas (eds.), Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (3rd ed., Kluwer Law International 2015)Google Scholar
David, P. A., ‘Some New Standards for the Economics of Standardization in the Information Age’ in Dasgupta, Partha and Stoneman, Paul (eds.), Economic Policy and Technological Performance (Cambridge University Press 1987)Google Scholar
de Vries, H. J., ‘Standardisation’ in Delimatsis, Panagiotis (ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardisation (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., ‘International Competition Network’ in Hale, Thomas and Held, David (eds.), Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations (Polity Press 2011)Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and Klemperer, P., ‘Chapter 31 Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects’ in Armstrong, M. and Porter, R. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 3 (Elsevier 2007)Google Scholar
Froomkin, A. M., ‘Semi-Private International Rulemaking: Lessons Learned from the WIPO Domain Name Process Regulating the Global Information Society’ in Marsden, Christopher T. (ed.), Regulating the Global Information Society (Routledge 2001)Google Scholar
Gandal, N. and Régibeau, P., ‘Standard-Setting Organisations’ in Delimatsis, Panagiotis (ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardisation (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Gao, H., ‘Annex on Telecommunications’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Stoll, Peter-Tobias and Feinäugle, Clemens (eds.), WTO-Trade in Services (Brill Nijhoff 2008)Google Scholar
Goodin, R., ‘The Collective Action Problem’ in Danis, Marion and others (eds.), Fair Resource Allocation and Rationing at the Bedside (Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Hale, C. J. L. M., ‘A Treatise in Three Parts. Pars Prima. De Jure Maris et Brachiorum Ejusdem. Pars Secunda. De Portibus Maris. Pars Tertia. Concerning the Customs of Goods Imported and Exported’, Collection of Tracts Relative to the Law of England (E. Lynch 1787)Google Scholar
Hesse, R. B. and Marshall, F., ‘U.S. Antitrust Aspects of FRAND Disputes’ in Jorge, L. Contreras (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust and Patents (Cambridge University Press 2017)Google Scholar
Hilty, R. M., ‘The Role of Enforcement in Delineating the Scope of Intellectual Property Rights’ in Micklitz, Hans-W and Wechsler, Andrea (eds.), The Transformation of Enforcement: European Economic Law in Global Perspective (Hart Publishing 2016)Google Scholar
Hilty, R. M. ‘Ways Out of the Trap of Article 1(1) TRIPS’ in Ullrich, Hanns and others (eds.), TRIPS plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016)Google Scholar
Höpperger, M. and Senftleben, M., ‘Protection against Unfair Competition at the International Level – The Paris Convention, the 1996 Model Provisions and the Current Work of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’ in Hilty, Reto M. and Henning-Bodewig, Frauke (eds.), Law against Unfair Competition: Towards a New Paradigm in Europe? (Springer 2007)Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., ‘The Legal Periphery of Dominant Firm Conduct’ in Mateus, Abel M. and Moreira, Teresa (eds.), Competition Law and Economics: Advances in Competition Policy Enforcement in the EU and North America (Edward Elgar 2010)Google Scholar
Jakobs, K., Lemstra, W. and Hayes, V., ‘Creating a Wireless Standard: IEEE 802.11’ in Lemstra, Wolter, Hayes, Victor and Groenewegen, John (eds.), The Innovation Journey of Wi-Fi: The Road to Global Success (Cambridge University Press 2010)Google Scholar
Johnson, A., ‘Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’, Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (Wolters Kluwer 2014)Google Scholar
Joskow, P. L., ‘Regulation of Natural Monopoly’ in Mitchell Polinsky, A. and Shavell, Stephen (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 2 (North Holland 2007)Google Scholar
Koppell, J., ‘International Organization for Standardization’ in Hale, Thomas and Held, David (eds.), Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions & Innovation (Polity Press 2011)Google Scholar
Kur, A., ‘From Minimum Standards to Maximum Rules’ in Ullrich, Hanns and others (eds.), TRIPS plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016)Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N., ‘Technological Standards, Innovation and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach’ in Ellig, Jerry (ed.), Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation and Antitrust Issues (Cambridge University Press 2001)Google Scholar
Larouche, P. and others, ‘Continental Drift in the Treatment of Dominant Firms: Article 102 TFEU in Contrast to Section 2 Sherman Act’, The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics, vol. 2 (Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Liu, X., ‘The Information Technology Agreement: Sui Generis or Model Stepping Stone’ in Baldwin, Richard and Low, Patrick (eds.), Multilateralizing Regionalism: Challenges for the Global Trading System (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Menell, P. S. and Scotchmer, S., ‘Intellectual Property Law’ in Mitchell Polinsky, A. and Shavell, Stephen (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 2 (North-Holland 2007)Google Scholar
Nagaoka, S., Tsukada, N. and Shimbo, T., ‘The Structure and the Emergence of Essential Patents for Standards: Lessons from Three IT Standards’ in Cantner, Uwe, Gaffard, Jean-Luc and Nesta, Lionel (eds.), Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth (Springer 2009)Google Scholar
Neef, A. and Reyes-Knoche, S., ‘Article 27. Patentable Subject Matter’ in Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Busche, Jan and Arend, Katrin (eds.), WTO-Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Brill Nijhoff 2009)Google Scholar
Reyes-Knoche, S., ‘Article 29. Conditions On Patent Applicants’ in Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Busche, Jan and Arend, Katrin (eds.), WTO-Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Brill Nijhoff 2009)Google Scholar
Risse, A., ‘Injunctions in Germany’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Sachs, J. D. and McArthur, J. W., ‘Technological Advancement and Long-Term Economic Growth in Asia’ in Bai, Chong-En and Yuen, Chi-Wa (eds.), Technology and the New Economy (MIT Press 2002)Google Scholar
Seaman, C. B. and others, ‘Lost Profits and Disgorgement’ in Bradford Biddle, C. and others (eds.), Patent Remedies and Complex Products: Towards a Global Consensus (Cambridge University Press 2019)Google Scholar
Shapiro, C., ‘Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting’ in Laffe, Adam B., Lerner, Josh and Stern, Scott (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1 (MIT Press 2001)Google Scholar
Sikorski, R., ‘Patent Law Injunctions in the European Union Law’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Suzuki, M., ‘Enforcement of FRAND-Encumbered SEPs’ in Liu, Kung-Chung (ed.), Annotated Leading Patent Cases in Major Asian Jurisdictions (City University of Hong Kong Press 2017)Google Scholar
Sykes, W., ‘International Law’ in Mitchell Polinsky, A. and Shavell, Stephen (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 1 (Elsevier 2007)Google Scholar
Taubman, A., Wager, H. and Watal, J. (eds.), A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement (Cambridge University Press 2012)Google Scholar
Teubner, G., ‘Foreword: Legal Regimes of Global Non-State Actors’ in Teubner, Gunther (ed.), Global Law without a State (Dartmouth Publishing Company 1996)Google Scholar
Teubner, G. ‘“Global Bukowina”: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Teubner, Gunther (ed.), Global Law without a State (Dartmouth Publishing Company 1996)Google Scholar
Zhang, L., ‘Injunctive Relief in China’s Patent Law’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W. and Snidal, D., ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’ (2000) 54 International Organization 421Google Scholar
Afori, O. F., ‘Flexible Remedies as a Means to Counteract Failures in Copyright Law’ (2011) 29 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Review 1Google Scholar
Ahlborn, C. and Evans, D. S., ‘The Microsoft Judgement and Its Implications for Competition Policy Towards Dominant Firms in Europe’ (2008) 75 Antitrust Law Journal 887Google Scholar
Ahlborn, C., Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J., ‘The Antitrust Economics of Tying: A Farewell to Per Se Illegality Antitrust in the U.S. and EU: Converging or Diverging Paths’ (2004) 49 Antitrust Bulletin 287Google Scholar
Ahlborn, C., Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J. ‘The Logic & Limits of the Exceptional Circumstances Test in Magill and IMS Health’ (2004) 28 Fordham International Law Journal 1109Google Scholar
Alban, D., ‘Rambus v Infineon: Patent Disclosures in Standard-Setting Organizations’ (2004) 19 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 309Google Scholar
Ali, A. N. A., ‘Comparison Study between IPV4 & IPV6’ (2012) 9 International Journal of Computer Science Issues 314Google Scholar
Almeling, D.S., ‘Four Reasons to Enact a Federal Trade Secrets Act’ (2009) 19 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 770Google Scholar
‘Altera v. Clear Logic: 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Circuit, 2005)’ (2007) 22(1) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 391Google Scholar
Anderson, P. and Tushman, M. L., ‘Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change’ (1990) 35 Administrative Science Quarterly 604Google Scholar
Andrews, J. G. and others, ‘What Will 5 G Be?’ (2014) 32 IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 1065Google Scholar
Angelov, M., ‘The “Exceptional Circumstances” Test: Implications for Frand Commitments from the Essential Facilities Doctrine Under Article 102 TFEU’ (2014) 10 European Competition Journal 37Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., ‘Technological Knowledge as an Essential Facility’ (2007) 17 Journal of Evolutionary Economics 451Google Scholar
Ard, B., ‘More Property Rules than Property? The Right to Exclude in Patent and Copyright’ (2019) 68 Emory Law Journal 685Google Scholar
Areeda, P., ‘Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles’ (1989) 58 Antitrust Law Journal 841Google Scholar
Asay, C. D., ‘Software’s Copyright Anticommons’ (2016) 66 Emory Law Journal 265Google Scholar
Atzori, L., Iera, A. and Morabito, G., ‘The Internet of Things: A Survey’ (2010) 54 Computer Networks 2787Google Scholar
Ballardini, R. M., ‘Software Patents in Europe: The Technical Requirement Dilemma’ (2008) 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 563Google Scholar
Baron, J. and Spulber, D., ‘Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database’ (2018) 27 Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 462Google Scholar
Baron, J. and Spulber, D. ‘The Software Patent Thicket: A Matter of Disclosure’ (2009) 6 SCRIPTed 207Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J. and Swanson, D. G., ‘Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, And Control of Market Power’ (2005) 73 Antitrust Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Beebe, B., ‘An Empirical Study of US Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978–2005’ (2008) 156 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 549Google Scholar
Bekkers, R., Bongard, R. and Nuvolari, A., ‘An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Essential Patent Claims in Compatibility Standards’ (2011) 40 Research Policy 1001Google Scholar
Bell, A. and Parchomovsky, G., ‘Restructuring Copyright Infringement’ (2020) 98 Texas Law Review 689Google Scholar
Bender, G.A., ‘Clash of the Titans: The Territoriality of Patent Law vs. The European Union’ (2000) 40 Idea 49Google Scholar
Bendix, K., ‘Copyright Damages: Incorporating Reasonable Royalty from Patent Law’ (2012) 27 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 527Google Scholar
Besen, S. and Farrell, J., ‘The Role of the ITU in Standardization: Pre-Eminence, Impotence or Rubber Stamp?’ (1991) 15 Telecommunications Policy 311Google Scholar
Bharadwaj, A. and Verma, D., ‘China’s First Injunction in Standard Essential Patent Litigation’ (2017) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 717Google Scholar
Bi, Q., Zysman, G. I. and Menkes, H., ‘Wireless Mobile Communications at the Start of the 21st Century’ [2001] IEEE Communications Magazine 110Google Scholar
Biddle, B. and others, ‘The Expanding Role and Importance of Standards in the Information and Communications Technology Industry’ (2012) 52 Jurimetrics 177Google Scholar
Blair, R. D. and Esquibel, A. K., ‘The Microsoft Muddle: A Caveat Symposium: Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice’ (1995) 40 Antitrust Bulletin 257Google Scholar
Blind, K., ‘An Economic Analysis of Standards Competition: The Example of ISO ODF and OOXML Standards’ (2011) 35 Telecommunications Policy 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, W. S., ‘Tying Arrangements and the Leverage Problem’ (1957) 67 Yale Law Journal 19Google Scholar
Bradford, A., ‘International Antitrust Negotiations and the False Hope of the WTO’ (2007) 48 Harvard International Law Journal 383Google Scholar
Brummer, C., ‘Why Soft Law Dominates International Finance—and Not Trade’ (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 623Google Scholar
Budzinski, O., ‘The International Competition Network: Prospects and Limits on the Road towards International Competition Governance’ (2004) 8 Competition and Change 223Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. R. and Melamed, A. D., ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’ (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review 1089Google Scholar
Carlton, D. W. and Waldman, M., ‘The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries’ (2002) 33 The RAND Journal of Economics 194Google Scholar
Cashore, B., ‘Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority’ (2002) 15 Governance 503Google Scholar
Chang, E. K., ‘Expanding Definition of Monopoly Leveraging’ (2009) 17 University of Miami Business Law Review 325Google Scholar
Chao, B., ‘Lost Profits in a Multicomponent World’ (2018) 59 Boston College Law Review 1321Google Scholar
Chiao, B., Lerner, J. and Tirole, J., ‘The Rules of Standard‐setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis’ (2007) 38 The RAND Journal of Economics 905Google Scholar
Church, J. and Gandal, N., ‘Network Effects, Software Provision, and Standardization’ (1992) 40 The Journal of Industrial Economics 85Google Scholar
Coase, R., ‘The Problem of Social Cost’ (1960) 3 Journal of Law and Economics 1Google Scholar
Codding, G. A., ‘The International Telecommunication Union: 130 Years of Telecommunications Regulation’ (1994) 23 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 501Google Scholar
Congleton, R. D., ‘The Logic of Collective Action and Beyond’ (2015) 164 Public Choice 217Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L., ‘Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing’ (2013) 79 Antitrust Law Journal 47Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L. ‘A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and Other Patent Pledges’ (2015) 2 Utah Law Review 479Google Scholar
Cotropia, C. A. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Copying in Patent Law’ (2008) 87 North Carolina Law Review 1421Google Scholar
Cotter, T. F., ‘Intellectual Property and the Essential Facilities Doctrine’ (1999) 44 Antitrust Bulletin 211Google Scholar
Cotter, T. F. ‘Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies and Antitrust Responses’ (2009) 34 Journal of Corporation Law 1151Google Scholar
Cotter, T. F. ‘Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties’ (2013) 22 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 311Google Scholar
Craig, J. A., ‘Deconstructing Wonderland: Making Sense of Software Patents in a Post-Alice World’ (2017) 32 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 359Google Scholar
Cremers, K. and others, ‘Patent Litigation in Europe’ (2017) 44 European Journal of Law and Economics 1Google Scholar
Dai, J., Deng, Z. and Jung, S. K., ‘Antitrust Enforcement against Standard Essential Patents in China’ (2017) 62 The Antitrust Bulletin 453Google Scholar
David, P. A., ‘Clio and the Economics of QWERTY’ (1985) 75 American Economic Review 332Google Scholar
DeBriyn, J., ‘Shedding Light on Copyright Trolls: An Analysis of Mass Copyright Litigation in the Age of Statutory Damages’ (2012) 19 UCLA Entertainment Law Review 79Google Scholar
Demestichas, P. and others, ‘Emerging Air Interfaces and Management Technologies for the 5 G Era’ (2017) 2017 EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 184Google Scholar
Demsetz, H., ‘When Does the Rule of Liability Matter?’ (1972) 1 The Journal of Legal Studies 13Google Scholar
Depoorter, B., ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules and Patent Market Failure’ (2008) 01 Erasmus Law Review 59Google Scholar
Depoorter, B. ‘Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Age: When the Remedy Is the Wrong’ (2019) 66 UCLA Law Review 400Google Scholar
Doherty, B., ‘Just What Are Essential Facilities?’ (2001) 38 Common Market Law Review 397Google Scholar
Dolmans, M., ‘Standards for Standards European Union Law’ (2002) 26 Fordham International Law Journal 163, 181Google Scholar
Donahey, T. I., ‘Terminal Railroad Revisited: Using the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Ensure Accessibility to Internet Software Standards’ (1997) 25 AIPLA Quarterly Journal 277Google Scholar
Drexl, J., ‘International Competition Policy after Cancun: Placing a Singapore Issue on the WTO Development Agenda’ (2004) 27 World Competition 419Google Scholar
Duan, C., ‘Internet of Infringing Things: The Effect of Computer Interface Copyrights on Technology Standards’ (2019) 45 Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Dufaux, F., Sullivan, G. J. and Ebrahimi, T., ‘The JPEG XR Image Coding Standard [Standards in a Nutshell]’ (2009) 26 IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 195Google Scholar
Economides, N., ‘The Microsoft Antitrust Case’ (2001) 1 Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 7Google Scholar
Economides, N. and Lianos, I., ‘Elusive Antitrust Standard on Bundling in Europe and in the United States in the Aftermath of the Microsoft Cases’ (2009) 76 Antitrust Law Journal 483Google Scholar
Economides, N. and Salop, S. C., ‘Competition and Integration Among Complements, and Network Market Structure’ (1992) 40 The Journal of Industrial Economics 105Google Scholar
Economides, N. and White, L. J., ‘Access and Interconnection Pricing: How Efficient Is the “Efficient Component Pricing Rule”?’ (1995) 40 The Antitrust Bulletin 557Google Scholar
Eilmansberger, T., ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under Art. 82: What Is the State of Affairs after IMS Health and Microsoft?’ (2005) 16 King’s Law Journal 329Google Scholar
Elhauge, E., ‘Defining Better Monopolization Standards’ (2003) 56 Stanford Law Review 253Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. G., ‘Designing Antitrust Rules for Assessing Unilateral Practices: A Neo-Chicago Approach’ (2005) 72 University of Chicago Law Review 73Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J., ‘Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules’ (2005) 1 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 97Google Scholar
Evrard, S. J., ‘Essential Facilities in the European Union: Bronner and Beyond’ (2004) 10 Columbia Journal of European Law 491Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and others, ‘Standard-Setting, Patents and Hold-Up’ (2007) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 603Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and Saloner, G., ‘Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation’ (1985) 16 The RAND Journal of Economics 70Google Scholar
First, H., ‘Microsoft and the Evolution of the Intellectual Property Concept’ [2006] Wisconsin Law Review 1369Google Scholar
Fox, E., ‘Competition Law and the Millennium Round’ (1999) 2 Journal of International Economic Law 665Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., ‘Legitimacy in the International System’ (1988) 82 The American Journal of International Law 705Google Scholar
Frischmann, B. and Waller, S. W., ‘Revitalizing Essential Facilities’ (2008) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Funk, J. L., ‘The Co-Evolution of Technology and Methods of Standard Setting: The Case of the Mobile Phone Industry’ (2008) 19 Journal of Evolutionary Economics 73Google Scholar
Galetovic, A. and Haber, S., ‘Innovation Under Threat? An Assessment of the Evidence for Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking in SEP-Intensive, IT Industries’ (2016) 3 Competition Policy International JournalGoogle Scholar
Galetovic, A. and Haber, S. ‘The Fallacies of Patent Holdup Theory’ (2017) 13(1) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 1Google Scholar
Gandal, N., ‘Compatibility, Standardization and Network Effects: Some Policy Implications’ (2002) 18 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 80Google Scholar
Gandal, N. and Shy, O., ‘Standardization Policy and International Trade’ (2001) 53 Journal of International Economics 363Google Scholar
Geiger, C. and others, ‘Declaration A Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law’ (2010) 1 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 119Google Scholar
Geiger, C., Gervais, D. J. and Senftleben, M., ‘The Three Step Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law’ (2014) 29 American University International Law Review 581Google Scholar
Genschel, P., ‘How Fragmentation Can Improve Co-Ordination: Setting Standards in International Telecommunications’ (1997) 18 Organization Studies 603Google Scholar
Gerardin, D., ‘Limiting the Scope of Article 82 EC: What Can the EU Learn from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Judgment in Trinko in the Wake of Microsoft, IMS and Deutsche Telekom?’ (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 1519Google Scholar
Gerardin, D., Layne-Farrar, A. and Padilla, A. J., ‘The Complements Problem within Standard Setting: Assessing the Evidence on Royalty Stacking’ (2008) 14 Boston University Journal of Science, Technology and Law 144Google Scholar
Gerber, D.J ., ‘Rethinking the Monopolist’s Duty to Deal: A Legal and Economic Critique of the Doctrine of “Essential Facilities”’ (1988) 74 Virginia Law Review 1069Google Scholar
Gervais, D. J., ‘Towards a New Core International Copyright Norm: The Reverse Three-Step Test’ (2005) 9 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 1Google Scholar
Gilbert, R. J. and Katz, M. L., ‘Should Good Patents Come in Small Packages? A Welfare Analysis of Intellectual Property Bundling’ (2006) 24 International Journal of Industrial Organization 931Google Scholar
Ginsburg, D. H. and others, ‘The Troubling Use of Antitrust to Regulate FRAND Licensing’ (2015) 10 CPI Antitrust Chronicle 2Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Copyright, Common Law and Sui Generis Protection of Databases in the United States and Abroad’ (1997) 66 University of Cincinnati Law Review 151Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C. ‘Towards Supranational Copyright Law? The WTO Panel Decision and the “Three-Step Test” for Copyright Exceptions’ (2001) 3 Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur 7Google Scholar
Giocoli, N., ‘Competition versus Property Rights: American Antitrust Law, the Freiburg School, and the Early Years of European Competition Policy’ (2009) 5 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 747Google Scholar
Glazer, K., ‘The IMS Health Case: A US Perspective’ (2006) 13 George Mason Law Review 1197Google Scholar
Goold, P. R., ‘The Interpretive Argument for a Balanced Three-Step Test?’ (2017) 33 American University International Law Review 187Google Scholar
Grasso, R., ‘The ECJ Ruling in Huawei and the Right to Seek Injunctions Based on FRAND-Encumbered SEPs under EU Competition Law: One Step Forward’ (2016) 39 World Competition 213Google Scholar
Gratz, J. A. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Platforms and Interoperability in Oracle v Google’ (2018) 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 603Google Scholar
Guan, W., ‘Diversified FRAND Enforcement and TRIPS Integrity’ (2018) 17 World Trade Review 91Google Scholar
Guzman, A. T. and Meyer, T. L., ‘International Soft Law’ (2010) 2 Journal of Legal Analysis 171Google Scholar
Hancock, P., ‘From State Street Bank to CLS Bank and Back: Reforming Software Patents to Promote Innovation’ (2013) 16 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 425Google Scholar
Harz, M. H., ‘Dominance and Duty in the European Union: A Look through Microsoft Windows at the Essential Facilities Doctrine Comment’ (1997) 11 Emory International Law Review 189Google Scholar
Hay, G. A., ‘A Monopolist’s “Duty to Deal”: The Briar Patch Revisited’ (2002) 3 Sedona Conference Journal 1Google Scholar
Hayek, F., ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’ (1945) 35 American Economic Review 519Google Scholar
Hiertz, G. R. and others, ‘The IEEE 802.11 Universe’ (2010) IEEE Communications Magazine 62Google Scholar
Holzapfel, H. and Sarnoff, J. D., ‘A Cross-Atlantic Dialog on Experimental Use and Research Tools’ (2008) 48 IDEA Intellectual Property Law Review 123Google Scholar
Hou, L., ‘Qualcomm: How China Has Invalidated Traditional Business Models on Standard Essential Patents’ (2016) 7 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 686Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., ‘Symposium: Intellectual Property Rights and Federal Antitrust Policy – Introduction Symposium: Intellectual Property Rights and Federal Antitrust Policy: Introduction’ (1999) 24 Journal of Corporation Law 477Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H. ‘Standards Ownership and Competition Policy’ (2007) 48 Boston College Law Review 87Google Scholar
Huang, Y., Wang, E. X.-R. and Zhang, R. X., ‘Essential Facilities Doctrine and Its Application in Intellectual Property Space under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law’ (2015) 22 George Mason Law Review 1103Google Scholar
Hylton, K. N., ‘Economic Rents and Essential Facilities’ (1991) Brigham Young University Law Review 1243Google Scholar
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, ‘San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea’ (1995) November–December 1995 International Review of the Red Cross 595Google Scholar
Jacobs, K., Procter, R. N. and Williams, R. A., ‘The Making of Standards: Looking inside the Work Groups’ (2001) 39 IEEE Communications Magazine 102Google Scholar
Ji, H. H., ‘District Courts versus the USITC: Considering Exclusionary Relief for F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents Note’ (2014) 21 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 169Google Scholar
Jin, L. and Ying, Y., ‘Why Copyright Protection Falls Behind the Requirement for Protecting Graphic User Interfaces: Case Studies on Limitations of Protection for GUIs in China’ (2012) 3 IP Theory 6Google Scholar
Kaplow, L., ‘The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal’ (1984) 97 Harvard Law Review 1813Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavell, S., ‘Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis’ (1996) 109 Harvard Law Review 713Google Scholar
Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C., ‘Systems Competition and Network Effects’ (1994) 8 The Journal of Economic Perspectives 93Google Scholar
Keil, T., ‘De Facto Standardization through Alliances – Lessons from Bluetooth’ (2002) 26 Telecommunications Policy 205Google Scholar
Kens, P., ‘Property, Liberty and the Rights of the Community: Lessons from Munn v Illinois’ (2011) 30 Buffalo Public International Law Journal 157Google Scholar
Keszbom, A. and Goldman, A. V., ‘No Shortcut to Antitrust Analysis: The Twisted Journey of the “Essential Facilities” Doctrine’ (1996) 1996 Columbia Business Law Review 1Google Scholar
Kim, J. and Lee, I., ‘802.11 WLAN: History and New Enabling MIMO Techniques for next Generation Standards’ (2015) 53 IEEE Communications Magazine 134Google Scholar
Klein, H., ‘ICANN and Internet Governance: Leveraging Technical Coordination to Realize Global Public Policy’ (2002) 18 The Information Society 193Google Scholar
Koelman, K. J., ‘Fixing the Three-Step Test’ (2006) 28 European Intellectual Property Review 407Google Scholar
Kolasky, W. J., ‘Network Effects: A Contrarian View’ (1999) 7 George Mason Law Review 577Google Scholar
Krechmer, K., ‘The Fundamental Nature of Standards: Technical Perspective’ (2000) 38 IEEE Communications Magazine 70Google Scholar
Kreiss, R. A., ‘Patent Protection for Computer Programs and Mathematical Algorithms: The Constitutional Limitations on Patentable Subject Matter’ (1999) 29 New Mexico Law Review 31Google Scholar
Kreuzbauer, G., ‘Topics in Contemporary Legal Argumentation: Some Remarks on the Topical Nature of Legal Argumentation in the Continental Law Tradition’ (2008) 28 Informal Logic 71Google Scholar
Krier, J. E. and Schwab, S. J., ‘Property Rules and Liability Rules: The Cathederal in Another Light’ (1995) 70 New York University Law Review 440Google Scholar
Lang, J. T., ‘Defining Legitimate Competition: Companies’ Duties to Supply Competitors and Access to Essential Facilities’ (1994) 18 Fordham International Law Journal 437Google Scholar
Lao, M., ‘Networks, Access and “Essential Facilities”: From Terminal Railroad to Microsoft’ (2009) 62 Southern Methodist University Law Review 557Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A., ‘Moving Past the SEP Rand Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing’ (2013) 21 George Mason Law Review 1093Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A., Padilla, A. J. and Schmalensee, R., ‘Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organizations: Making Sense of Frand Commitments’ (2007) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 671Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A., Padilla, A. J. and Schmalensee, R. ‘Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments’ (2007) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 671Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A. and Salinger, M. A., ‘Bundling of RAND-Committed Patents’ (2016) 45 Research Policy 1155Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A. and Wong-Ervin, K. W., ‘Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Damages: An Economic and Comparative Analysis of the Case Law from China, the European Union, India, and the United States’ (2017) 8 Jindal Global Law Review 127Google Scholar
Leal-Arcas, R., ‘China’s Attitude to Multilateralism in International Economic Law and Governance: Challenges for the World Trading System’ (2010) 11 The Journal of World Investment & Trade 259Google Scholar
Leiner, B. M. and others, ‘A Brief History of the Internet’ (2009) 39 Computer Communication Review 22Google Scholar
Lemley, M., ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Standards-Setting Organizations’ (2002) 90 California Law Review 1889Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘Ten Things to Do about Patent Holdup of Standards (and One Not To)’ (2007) 48 Boston College Law Review 148Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights’ (2008) 61 Stanford Law Review 311Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘Distinguishing Lost Profits from Reasonable Royalties’ (2009) 51 William and Mary Law Review 655Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘Contracting Around Liability Rules’ (2012) 100 California Law Review 463Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A. and Shapiro, C., ‘A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents’ (2013) 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1135Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A. and Weiser, P. J., ‘Should Property or Liability Rules Govern Information?’ (2006) 85 Texas Law Review 783Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J., ‘A Model of Forum Shopping’ (2006) 96 American Economic Review 1091Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. ‘Standard-Essential Patents’ (2015) 123 Journal of Political Economy 547Google Scholar
Levanen, T. and others, ‘Radio Interface Evolution towards 5 G and Enhanced Local Area Communications’ (2014) 2 IEEE Access 1005Google Scholar
Leveque, F., ‘Innovation, Leveraging and Essential Facilities: Interoperability Licensing in the EU Microsoft Case’ (2005) 28 World Competition 71Google Scholar
Levi, E. H., ‘The Antitrust Laws and Monopoly’ (1947) 14 The University of Chicago Law Review 153Google Scholar
Li, B. C., ‘The Global Convergence of FRAND Licensing Practices: Towards Interoperable Legal Standards Patent Law’ (2016) 31 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 429Google Scholar
Li, Y., ‘The Current Dilemma and Future of Software Patenting’ (2019) 50 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 823Google Scholar
Li, Y. B., ‘Antitrust Correction for Qualcomm’s SEPs Package Licensing and Its Flexibility in China’ (2016) 47 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 336Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E., ‘The Fable of the Keys’ (1990) 33 Journal of Law & Economics 1Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E. ‘Path Dependence, Lock-In and History’ (1995) 11 Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 205Google Scholar
Lim, A. S., ‘Inter-Consortia Battles in Mobile Payments Standardisation’ (2008) 7 Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 202Google Scholar
Lim, D., ‘Beyond Microsoft: Intellectual Property, Peer Production and the Law’s Concern with Market Dominance’ (2008) 18 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 291Google Scholar
Lipsky, A. B. and Sidak, J. G., ‘Essential Facilities’ (1998) 51 Stanford Law Review 1187Google Scholar
Liu, H.-W., ‘International Standards in Flux: A Balkanized ICT Standard-Setting Paradigm and Its Implications for the WTO’ (2014) 17 Journal of International Economic Law 551Google Scholar
Liu, J., ‘Copyright Injunctions after EBay: An Empirical Study’ (2012) 16 Lewis & Clark Law Review 215Google Scholar
Longhofer, F. K., ‘Patentability of Computer Programs Comment’ (1982) 34 Baylor Law Review 125Google Scholar
Lucas, A., ‘For a Reasonable Interpretation of the Three-Step Test’ (2010) 32 European Intellectual Property Review 277Google Scholar
MacCord, A., ‘Infringing a Standard-Essential Patent, or Not [Patent Reviews]’ (2015) 2 IEEE Power Electronics Magazine 14Google Scholar
Mace, A. C., ‘TRIPS, EBay and Denials of Injunctive Relief: Is Article 31 Compliance Everything?’ (2009) X Columbia Science and Technology Journal 233Google Scholar
Marsden, P. and Bishop, S., ‘Intellectual Leaders Still Need Ground to Stand On’ (2007) 3 European Competition Journal 315Google Scholar
Marshall, J., ‘Aggravated or Exemplary Damages for Copyright Infringement’ (2017) 39 European Intellectual Property Review 565Google Scholar
Marsnik, S. J. and Thomas, R., ‘Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject Matter Sands: Does Europe Provide a Solution to the Software & Business Method Patent Problem?’ (2011) 34 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 227Google Scholar
McAllister, B. P., ‘Lord Hale and Business Affected with a Public Interest’ (1930) 43 Harvard Law Review 759Google Scholar
McIntyre, S., ‘Trying to Agree on Three Articles of Law: The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Chinese Copyright Law’ (2010) 1 Cybaris 62Google Scholar
Meddeb, A., ‘Internet of Things Standards: Who Stands out from the Crowd?’ (2016) 54 IEEE Communications Magazine 40Google Scholar
Menell, P. S., ‘API Copyrightability Bleak House: Unraveling and Repairing the Oracle v. Google Jurisdictional Mess’ (2016) 31 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1515Google Scholar
Menell, P. S. ‘Rise of the API Copyright Dead: An Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software’ (2017) 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 305Google Scholar
Merges, R. P., ‘Of Property Rights, Coase and Intellectual Property’ (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review 2655Google Scholar
Merges, R. P. ‘Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations’ (1996) 84 California Law Review 1293Google Scholar
Miao, M. and Jayakar, K., ‘Mobile Payments in Japan, South Korea and China: Cross-Border Convergence or Divergence of Business Models?’ (2016) 40 Telecommunications Policy 182Google Scholar
Miyashita, Y., ‘International Protection of Computer Software’ (1991) 11 The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law 41Google Scholar
Möschel, W., ‘The Proper Scope of Government Viewed from an Ordoliberal Perspective: The Example of Competition Policy’ (2001) 157 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 3Google Scholar
Mowery, D. C. and Simcoe, T., ‘Is the Internet a US Invention?—An Economic and Technological History of Computer Networking’ (2002) 31 NELSON + WINTER + 20 1369Google Scholar
Mueller, M. M. and Badiei, F., ‘Governing Internet Territory: ICANN, Sovereignty Claims, Property Rights and Country Code Top-Level Domains’ (2017) XVIII Columbia Science and Technology Journal 435Google Scholar
National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), ‘Final Report on the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works’ (1981) 3 The John Marshall of Information Technology & Privacy Law 53Google Scholar
Nimmer, D., ‘Investigating the Hypothetical Reasonable Royalty for Copyright Infringement’ (2019) 99 Boston University Law Review 1Google Scholar
Ohta, M., ‘IETF and Internet Standards’ (1998) IEEE Communications Magazine 126Google Scholar
O’Rourke, M., ‘Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law’ (2000) 100 Columbia Law Review 1177Google Scholar
Ozcan, P. and Santos, F. M., ‘The Market That Never Was: Turf Wars and Failed Alliances in Mobile Payments’ (2015) 36 Strategic Management Journal 1486Google Scholar
Pelkmans, J., ‘Making EU Network Markets Competitive’ (2001) 17 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 432Google Scholar
Phillips, J., ‘EBay’s Effect on Copyright Injunctions: When Property Rules Give Way to Liability Rules II. Copyright – Note’ – Berkeley Technology Law Journal 405Google Scholar
Pitofsky, R., Patterson, D. and Hooks, J., ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law’ (2002) 70 Antitrust Law Journal 443Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. M., ‘On the Choice between Liability Rules and Property Rules’ (1980) XVIII Economic Inquiry 233Google Scholar
Portugal-Perez, A., Reyes, J.-D. and Wilson, J. S., ‘Beyond the Information Technology Agreement: Harmonisation of Standards and Trade in Electronics’ (2010) 33 The World Economy 1870Google Scholar
Posner, R. A., ‘Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation’ (1968) 21 Stanford Law Review 548Google Scholar
Puffert, D. J., ‘Path Dependence in Spatial Networks: The Standardization of Railway Track Gauge’ (2002) 39 Explorations in Economic History 282Google Scholar
Radomsky, L., ‘Sixteen Years after the Passage of the US Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Is International Protection Working’ (2000) 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1050Google Scholar
Ratner, J. R., ‘Should There Be an Essential Facility Doctrine’ (1988) 21 U.C. Davis Law Review 327Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., ‘Governing the Internet’ (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 491Google Scholar
Raymond, M. and DeNardis, L., ‘Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Institution’ (2015) 7 International Theory 572Google Scholar
Reiffen, D. and Kleit, A. N., ‘Terminal Railroad Revisited: Foreclosure of an Essential Facility or Simple Horizontal Monopoly?’ (1990) 33 The Journal of Law and Economics 419Google Scholar
Risberg, R. L. Jr, ‘Five Years without Infringement Litigation under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Unmasking the Spectre of Chip Piracy in an Era of Diverse and Incompatible Process Technologies Comment’ Wisconsin Law Review 241Google Scholar
Ritter, C., ‘Refusal to Deal and “Essential Facilities”: Does Intellectual Property Require Special Deference Compared to Tangible Property?’ (2005) 28 World Competition 281Google Scholar
Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J. (2003) 1 Journal of the European Economic Association 990Google Scholar
Rose, I. and Nqwe, C., ‘The Ordoliberal Tradition in the European Union, Its Influence on Article 82 EC and the IBA’s Comments on the Article 82 EC Discussion Paper Papers from the Chicago Conference’ (2007) 3 Competition Law International 8Google Scholar
Russell, A. L., ‘“Rough Consensus and Running Code” and the Internet-OSI Standards War’ (2006) 28 IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 48Google Scholar
Rysman, M., ‘Competition between Networks: A Study of the Market for Yellow Pages’ (2004) 71 The Review of Economic Studies 483Google Scholar
Rysman, M. and Simcoe, T., ‘Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations’ (2008) 54 Management Science 1920Google Scholar
Saint-Antoine, P. H. and Trego, G. D., ‘Solutions to Patent Hold-up beyond FRAND: An SOS to SSOs’ (2014) 59 The Antitrust Bulletin 183Google Scholar
Saltzman, J., Chatterjee, S. and Raman, M., ‘A Framework for ICT Standards Creation: The Case of ITU-T Standard H.350’ (2008) 33 Information Systems 285Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?’ (2009) 93 Minnesota Law Review 1943Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. ‘The Past, Present and Future of Software Copyright Interoperability Rules in the European Union and United States’ (2012) 34 European Intellectual Property Review 229Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. ‘Unbundling Fair Uses’ (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2537Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. ‘The Uneasy Case for Software Copyrights Revisited’ (2010) 79 George Washington Law Review 1746Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. and Wheatland, T., ‘Statutory Damages in Copyright Law: A Remedy in Need of Reform’ (2009) 51 William and Mary Law Review 439Google Scholar
Sandler, T., ‘Overcoming Global and Regional Collective Action Impediments’ (2010) 1 Global Policy 40Google Scholar
Schaffer, G. C. and Pollack, M. A., ‘Hard versus Soft Law in International Security’ (2011) 52 Boston College Law Review 1147Google Scholar
Senftleben, M., ‘Towards a Horizontal Standard for Limiting Intellectual Property Rights? WTO Panel Reports Shed Light on the Three-Step Test in Copyright Law and Related Tests in Patent and Trademark Law’ (2006) 37 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 407Google Scholar
Siebrasse, N. V. and Cotter, T. F., ‘Judicially Determined FRAND Royalties’ (2016) 68 Florida Law Review 929Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking’ (2007) 85 Texas Law Review 1992Google Scholar
Sheremata, W., ‘Barriers to Innovation: A Monopoly, Network Externalities, and the Speed of Innovation’ (1997) 42 The Antitrust Bulletin 937Google Scholar
Sherlock, I., ‘Wi-Fi Alliance: Connecting Everyone and Everything, Everywhere’ (2017) 1 IEEE Communications Standards Magazine 6Google Scholar
Sidak, J. G., ‘The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties’ (2013) 9 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 931Google Scholar
Sidak, J. G. ‘What Aggregate Royalty Do Manufacturers of Mobile Phones Pay to License Standard-Essential Patents?’ (2016) 1 The Criterion Journal on Innovation 701Google Scholar
Skitol, R. A., ‘Concerted Buying Power: Its Potential for Addressing the Patent Holdup Problem in Standard Setting Symposium: Buyer Power and Antitrust’ (2005) 72(2) Antitrust Law Journal 727Google Scholar
Smith, H. E., ‘Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information’ (2007) 116 Yale Law Journal 1742Google Scholar
Sokol, D. and Zheng, W., ‘FRAND in China’ (2013) 22 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 71Google Scholar
Stasik, E., ‘Royalty Rates and Licensing Strategies for Essential Patents on LTE (4 G) Telecommunication Standards’ (2010) 3 les Nouvelles 114Google Scholar
Stoeckli, W., ‘Topic and Argumentation: The Contribution of Viehweg and Perelman in the Field of Methodology as Applied to Law’ (1968) 54 Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 581Google Scholar
Strandburg, K. J., ‘Patent Fair Use 2.0’ (2011) 1 University of California Irvine Law Review 265Google Scholar
Strickling, L. E. and Hill, J. F., ‘Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance: Successes and Opportunities’ (2017) 2 Journal of Cyber Policy 296Google Scholar
Takigawa, T., ‘Standard-Essential Patents and the Japanese Competition Law in Comparison with China, the U.S. and the EU’ (2017) 62 The Antitrust Bulletin 483Google Scholar
Tassey, G., ‘Standardization in Technology-Based Markets’ (2000) 29 Research Policy 587Google Scholar
Taubman, A., ‘Rethinking TRIPS: “Adequate Remuneration” for Non-Voluntary Patent Licensing’ (2008) 11 Journal of International Economic Law 927Google Scholar
Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. and Suo, S., ‘Influences on Standards Adoption in de Facto Standardization’ (2011) 12 Information Technology Management 357Google Scholar
Torremans, P., ‘Compensation for Intellectual Property Infringement: Admissibility of Punitive Damages and Compensation for Moral Prejudice’ (2018) 40 European Intellectual Property Review 797Google Scholar
Trappey, A. J. C. and others, ‘A Review of Essential Standards and Patent Landscapes for the Internet of Things: A Key Enabler for Industry 4.0’ (2017) 33 Advanced Engineering Informatics 208Google Scholar
Troy, D. E., ‘Unclogging the Bottleneck: A New Essential Facility Doctrine’ (1983) 83 Columbia Law Review 441Google Scholar
Turney, J., ‘Defining the Limits of the EU Essential Facilities Doctrine on Intellectual Property Rights: The Primacy of Securing Optimal Innovation’ (2005) 3 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 179Google Scholar
von Lohmann, F., ‘The New Wave: Copyright and Software Interfaces in the Wake of Oracle v. Google’ (2018) 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (Special Issue) 517Google Scholar
Waller, S. W., ‘National Laws and International Markets: Strategies of Cooperation and Harmonization in the Enforcement of Competition Law’ (1996) 18 Cardozo Law Review 1111Google Scholar
Waller, S. W. ‘Areeda, Epithets and Essential Facilities’ [2008] Wisconsin Law Review 359Google Scholar
Waller, S. W. and Tasch, W., ‘Harmonizing Essential Facilities’ (2010) 76 Antitrust Law Journal 741Google Scholar
Walsh, M. J., ‘Disclosure Requirements of 35 USC 112 and Software-Related Patent Applications: Debugging the System’ (1985) 18 Connecticut Law Review 855Google Scholar
Wan, Y., ‘Copyright Damages in China’ (2013) Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 517Google Scholar
Warlouzet, L., ‘The EEC/EU as an Evolving Compromise between French Dirigism and German Ordoliberalism (1957–1995)’ (2019) 57 JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 77Google Scholar
Webb, W., ‘The Role of Networking Standards in Building the Internet of Things’ (2012) 1 Communications & Strategies 57Google Scholar
Werden, G. J., ‘The Law and Economics of the Essential Facility Doctrine’ (1987) 32 St Louis University Law Journal 433Google Scholar
Whinston, M. D., ‘Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion’ (1990) 80 The American Economic Review 837Google Scholar
Wiegand, T. and Sullivan, G. J., ‘The H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard [Standards in a Nutshell]’ (2007) 24 IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 148Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E., ‘Symposium on Antitrust Law and Economics: Introduction’ (1979) 127 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 918Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. ‘Transactions-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations’ (1979) 22 Journal of Law and Economics 233Google Scholar
Wilson, J., ‘The IETF: Laying the Net’s Asphalt’ (1998) 31 Computer 116Google Scholar
Wong-Ervin, K. W., ‘An Update on the Most Recent Version of China’s Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights’ [2017] Competition Policy International 1Google Scholar
Yarsky, J., ‘Hastening Harmonization in European Union Patent Law through a Preliminary Reference Power’ (2017) 40 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 167Google Scholar
Wu, Y. and Xiong, Y., ‘Comparison of the Bolar Exception in China and the United States’ (2008) 3 China Patents & Trademarks 13Google Scholar
Zhang, G., ‘Rules for Denying Copyright Permanent Injunctions in China: Fog Needs to Be Cleared Part I’ (2015) Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 341Google Scholar
Zingales, N. and Kanevskaia, O., ‘The IEEE-SA Patent Policy Update under the Lens of EU Competition Law’ (2016) 12 European Competition Journal 195, 201–205Google Scholar
Gilbert, R. J. and Shapiro, C., ‘An Economic Analysis of Unilateral Refusals to Licence Intellectual Property’ (1996) 93 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 12749Google Scholar
Goodman, D. J. and Myers, R. A., ‘3 G Cellular Standards and Patents’, 2005 International Conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing (2005)Google Scholar
Laporte, C. Y., April, A. and Renault, A., ‘Applying ISO/IEC Software Engineering Standards in Small Settings: Historical Perspectives and Initial Achievements’, Proceedings of the SPICE 2006 Conference, May 4–5, 2006, Luxembourg (Curran Associates, Inc)Google Scholar
Maathuis, I. and Smit, W. A., ‘The Battle between Standards: TCP/IP vs OSI Victory through Path Dependency or by Quality?’, Proceedings of the Third IEEE Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (IEEE 2003)Google Scholar
Tan, L. and Wang, N., ‘Future Internet: The Internet of Things’, 2010 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE) (2010)Google Scholar
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. and Sorensen, C., ‘Desperately Seeking the Infrastructure in IS Research: Conceptualization of “Digital Convergence” As Co-Evolution of Social and Technical Infrastructures’, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2010)Google Scholar
Waffenschmidt, E., ‘Wireless Power for Mobile Devices’, 2011 IEEE 33rd International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) (2011)Google Scholar
Weitzel, T., Wendt, O. and Westarp, F. V., ‘Reconsidering Network Effect Theory’, European Conference on Information Systems Proceedings (2000)Google Scholar
Blackburn, S., The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2016)Google Scholar
Brinsmead, S., ‘Delegated Regulation: Normalisation’, Elgar Encyclopaedia of International Economic Law (Elgar 2017)Google Scholar
Hall, B., ‘Patents’, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan 2008)Google Scholar
‘Mobile Air Interface’, Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary (2nd ed., CRC Press 2002)Google Scholar
‘Modularity’, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed., McGraw-Hill 2003)Google Scholar
Parisi, F., ‘Coase Theorem’, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan 2008)Google Scholar
Riffel, C., ‘Unfair Competition, International Protection’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 1989)Google Scholar
Abbate, J., Inventing the Internet (MIT Press 1999)Google Scholar
Akman, P., The Concept of Abuse in European Competition Law: Law and Economic Approaches (Hart Publishing 2012)Google Scholar
Band, J. and Katoh, M., Interfaces on Trial (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado 1995)Google Scholar
Band, J. and Katoh, M. Interfaces on Trial 2.0 (MIT Press 2011)Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J., Free Market Innovation Machine (Princeton University Press 2002)Google Scholar
Blind, K., The Economics of Standards: Theory, Evidence, Policy (Edward Elgar 2004)Google Scholar
Bork, R. H., The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (The Free Press, 2nd ed., 1993)Google Scholar
Cottier, T., Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Veron, P. (eds.), Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (3rd ed., Kluwer Law International 2015)Google Scholar
Cournot, A., Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, 1838 (Nathaniel T Bacon tr., MacMillan 1929)Google Scholar
Cox, C., An Introduction to LTE: LTE, LTE-Advanced, SAE and 4 G Mobile Communications (1st ed., John Wiley & Sons 2012)Google Scholar
Crane, R., The Politics of International Standards: France and the Color TV War (Communication and Information Science) (Ablex Publishing 1979)Google Scholar
Dahlmann, E., Parkvall, S. and Skold, J., 4G: LTE/LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband (2nd ed., Academic Press 2014)Google Scholar
Eijo, O. and others, Advanced Internet Protocols, Services and Innovations (John Wiley & Sons 2012)Google Scholar
Epstein, R., Principles for a Free Society (Perseus Publishing 1998)Google Scholar
Esser, J., Vorverständnis Und Methodenwahl (Athenäum-Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag 1972)Google Scholar
Ezrachi, A., EU Competition Law Guide: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases (Hart Publishing 2014)Google Scholar
Gasser, U. and Palfrey, J., Interoperability: The Promise and Perils of Highly Connected Systems (Basic Books 2012)Google Scholar
Gerber, D. J., Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (Oxford University Press 1998)Google Scholar
Gervais, D., The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (2nd ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2003)Google Scholar
Gibson, J. D. (ed.), Mobile Communications Handbook (3rd ed., CRC Press 2013)Google Scholar
Harvard Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Hookway, B., Interface (MIT Press 2014)Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., The Antitrust Enterprise (Harvard University Press 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., Janis, M. D. and Lemley, M. A., IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Practices Applied to Intellectual Property Law (1st ed., Wolters Kluwer 2002)Google Scholar
Jones, A. and Sufrin, B., EU Competition Law (5th ed., Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar
Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A., The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Levinson, M., The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger (2nd ed., Princeton University Press 2016)Google Scholar
Neale, A. D., The Antitrust Laws of the United States of America: A Study of Competition Enforced by Law (2nd ed., 1970)Google Scholar
Olsen, M., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard University Press 1965)Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., An Introduction to Law and Economics (4th ed., Wolters Kluwer 2011)Google Scholar
Posner, R., Antitrust Law (2nd ed., University of Chicago Press 2001)Google Scholar
Ruse-Khan, H. G., The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law (Oxford University Press Oxford 2016)Google Scholar
Schindler, D. and Toman, J., The Laws of Armed Conflicts (Martinus Nihjoff 1988)Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H., Information Rules (Harvard Business Press 1998)Google Scholar
Shavell, S., Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law (Belknap Press 2004)Google Scholar
Spurgeon, C., Ethernet: The Definitive Guide (O’Reilly Media Inc 2000)Google Scholar
Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press 2013)Google Scholar
Tirole, J., The Theory of Industrial Organization (MIT Press 1988)Google Scholar
Viehweg, T., Topics and Law (Peter Lang 1993)Google Scholar
Villarreal, A. B., International Standardization and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (Cambridge University Press 2018)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization, Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971) (World Intellectual Property Organization 1978)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization Implications of the TRIPS Agreement on Treaties Administered by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization 2002)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm (1967), vol. 1 (World Intellectual Property Organization 1971)Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm (1967), vol. 2 (World Intellectual Property Organization 1971)Google Scholar
Bakhoum, M. and Gallego, B. C., ‘TRIPS and Competition Rules: From Transfer of Technology to Innovation Policy’ in Ullrich, Hanns and others (eds.), TRIPS plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016)Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. and Woodard, C. J., ‘The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View’ in Gawer, Annabelle (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation (Edward Elgar, 2009)Google Scholar
Behrens, P., ‘The Ordoliberal Concept of “Abuse” of a Dominant Position and Its Impact on Article 102 TFEU’ in di Porto, Fabiana and Podszun, Rupprecht (eds.) (Edward Elgar 2018)Google Scholar
Blind, K., ‘From Standards to Quality Infrastructure’ in Delimatsis, Panagiotis (ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardisation (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Bradford, A., ‘International Antitrust Cooperation and the Preference for Nonbinding Regimes’ in Guzman, Andrew T. (ed.), Cooperation, Comity and Competition Policy (Oxford University Press 2011)Google Scholar
Burk, D. L. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Designing Optimal Software Patents’ in Hahn, Robert W. (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology (AEI Press 2005)Google Scholar
Codding, Jr. G. A., ‘Three Times Forty: The ITU in a Time of Change’ in Finkelstein, Lawrence S. (ed.), Politics in the International System (Duke University Press 1988)Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L., ‘Essentiality and Standards-Essential Patents’ in Contreras, Jorge L. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust, and Patents (Cambridge University Press 2017)Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L. ‘Injunctive Relief in US Patent Cases’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Cotropia, C. A., ‘Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States’ Decision in EBay v. MercExchange in Dinwoodie, Graeme and Janis, Mark D. (eds.), Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2009)Google Scholar
Cottier, T., ‘Embedding Intellectual Property in International Law’ in Roffe, Pedro and Seuba, Xavier (eds.), Current Alliances in International Intellectual Property Law Rulemaking: The Emergence and Impact of Mega-Regionals, vol. 4 (ICTSD/SEPI 2017)Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Germann, C., ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ in Veron, Pierre and Cottier, Thomas (eds.), Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (3rd ed., Kluwer Law International 2015)Google Scholar
David, P. A., ‘Some New Standards for the Economics of Standardization in the Information Age’ in Dasgupta, Partha and Stoneman, Paul (eds.), Economic Policy and Technological Performance (Cambridge University Press 1987)Google Scholar
de Vries, H. J., ‘Standardisation’ in Delimatsis, Panagiotis (ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardisation (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., ‘International Competition Network’ in Hale, Thomas and Held, David (eds.), Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations (Polity Press 2011)Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and Klemperer, P., ‘Chapter 31 Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects’ in Armstrong, M. and Porter, R. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 3 (Elsevier 2007)Google Scholar
Froomkin, A. M., ‘Semi-Private International Rulemaking: Lessons Learned from the WIPO Domain Name Process Regulating the Global Information Society’ in Marsden, Christopher T. (ed.), Regulating the Global Information Society (Routledge 2001)Google Scholar
Gandal, N. and Régibeau, P., ‘Standard-Setting Organisations’ in Delimatsis, Panagiotis (ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardisation (Cambridge University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Gao, H., ‘Annex on Telecommunications’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Stoll, Peter-Tobias and Feinäugle, Clemens (eds.), WTO-Trade in Services (Brill Nijhoff 2008)Google Scholar
Goodin, R., ‘The Collective Action Problem’ in Danis, Marion and others (eds.), Fair Resource Allocation and Rationing at the Bedside (Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar
Hale, C. J. L. M., ‘A Treatise in Three Parts. Pars Prima. De Jure Maris et Brachiorum Ejusdem. Pars Secunda. De Portibus Maris. Pars Tertia. Concerning the Customs of Goods Imported and Exported’, Collection of Tracts Relative to the Law of England (E. Lynch 1787)Google Scholar
Hesse, R. B. and Marshall, F., ‘U.S. Antitrust Aspects of FRAND Disputes’ in Jorge, L. Contreras (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Competition, Antitrust and Patents (Cambridge University Press 2017)Google Scholar
Hilty, R. M., ‘The Role of Enforcement in Delineating the Scope of Intellectual Property Rights’ in Micklitz, Hans-W and Wechsler, Andrea (eds.), The Transformation of Enforcement: European Economic Law in Global Perspective (Hart Publishing 2016)Google Scholar
Hilty, R. M. ‘Ways Out of the Trap of Article 1(1) TRIPS’ in Ullrich, Hanns and others (eds.), TRIPS plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016)Google Scholar
Höpperger, M. and Senftleben, M., ‘Protection against Unfair Competition at the International Level – The Paris Convention, the 1996 Model Provisions and the Current Work of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’ in Hilty, Reto M. and Henning-Bodewig, Frauke (eds.), Law against Unfair Competition: Towards a New Paradigm in Europe? (Springer 2007)Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., ‘The Legal Periphery of Dominant Firm Conduct’ in Mateus, Abel M. and Moreira, Teresa (eds.), Competition Law and Economics: Advances in Competition Policy Enforcement in the EU and North America (Edward Elgar 2010)Google Scholar
Jakobs, K., Lemstra, W. and Hayes, V., ‘Creating a Wireless Standard: IEEE 802.11’ in Lemstra, Wolter, Hayes, Victor and Groenewegen, John (eds.), The Innovation Journey of Wi-Fi: The Road to Global Success (Cambridge University Press 2010)Google Scholar
Johnson, A., ‘Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’, Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (Wolters Kluwer 2014)Google Scholar
Joskow, P. L., ‘Regulation of Natural Monopoly’ in Mitchell Polinsky, A. and Shavell, Stephen (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 2 (North Holland 2007)Google Scholar
Koppell, J., ‘International Organization for Standardization’ in Hale, Thomas and Held, David (eds.), Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions & Innovation (Polity Press 2011)Google Scholar
Kur, A., ‘From Minimum Standards to Maximum Rules’ in Ullrich, Hanns and others (eds.), TRIPS plus 20: From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016)Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N., ‘Technological Standards, Innovation and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schumpeterian Post-Chicago Approach’ in Ellig, Jerry (ed.), Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation and Antitrust Issues (Cambridge University Press 2001)Google Scholar
Larouche, P. and others, ‘Continental Drift in the Treatment of Dominant Firms: Article 102 TFEU in Contrast to Section 2 Sherman Act’, The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics, vol. 2 (Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Liu, X., ‘The Information Technology Agreement: Sui Generis or Model Stepping Stone’ in Baldwin, Richard and Low, Patrick (eds.), Multilateralizing Regionalism: Challenges for the Global Trading System (Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Menell, P. S. and Scotchmer, S., ‘Intellectual Property Law’ in Mitchell Polinsky, A. and Shavell, Stephen (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 2 (North-Holland 2007)Google Scholar
Nagaoka, S., Tsukada, N. and Shimbo, T., ‘The Structure and the Emergence of Essential Patents for Standards: Lessons from Three IT Standards’ in Cantner, Uwe, Gaffard, Jean-Luc and Nesta, Lionel (eds.), Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth (Springer 2009)Google Scholar
Neef, A. and Reyes-Knoche, S., ‘Article 27. Patentable Subject Matter’ in Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Busche, Jan and Arend, Katrin (eds.), WTO-Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Brill Nijhoff 2009)Google Scholar
Reyes-Knoche, S., ‘Article 29. Conditions On Patent Applicants’ in Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Busche, Jan and Arend, Katrin (eds.), WTO-Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Brill Nijhoff 2009)Google Scholar
Risse, A., ‘Injunctions in Germany’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Sachs, J. D. and McArthur, J. W., ‘Technological Advancement and Long-Term Economic Growth in Asia’ in Bai, Chong-En and Yuen, Chi-Wa (eds.), Technology and the New Economy (MIT Press 2002)Google Scholar
Seaman, C. B. and others, ‘Lost Profits and Disgorgement’ in Bradford Biddle, C. and others (eds.), Patent Remedies and Complex Products: Towards a Global Consensus (Cambridge University Press 2019)Google Scholar
Shapiro, C., ‘Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting’ in Laffe, Adam B., Lerner, Josh and Stern, Scott (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1 (MIT Press 2001)Google Scholar
Sikorski, R., ‘Patent Law Injunctions in the European Union Law’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Suzuki, M., ‘Enforcement of FRAND-Encumbered SEPs’ in Liu, Kung-Chung (ed.), Annotated Leading Patent Cases in Major Asian Jurisdictions (City University of Hong Kong Press 2017)Google Scholar
Sykes, W., ‘International Law’ in Mitchell Polinsky, A. and Shavell, Stephen (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 1 (Elsevier 2007)Google Scholar
Taubman, A., Wager, H. and Watal, J. (eds.), A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement (Cambridge University Press 2012)Google Scholar
Teubner, G., ‘Foreword: Legal Regimes of Global Non-State Actors’ in Teubner, Gunther (ed.), Global Law without a State (Dartmouth Publishing Company 1996)Google Scholar
Teubner, G. ‘“Global Bukowina”: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Teubner, Gunther (ed.), Global Law without a State (Dartmouth Publishing Company 1996)Google Scholar
Zhang, L., ‘Injunctive Relief in China’s Patent Law’ in Sikorski, Rafal (ed.), Patent Law Injunctions (Wolters Kluwer 2018)Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W. and Snidal, D., ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’ (2000) 54 International Organization 421Google Scholar
Afori, O. F., ‘Flexible Remedies as a Means to Counteract Failures in Copyright Law’ (2011) 29 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Review 1Google Scholar
Ahlborn, C. and Evans, D. S., ‘The Microsoft Judgement and Its Implications for Competition Policy Towards Dominant Firms in Europe’ (2008) 75 Antitrust Law Journal 887Google Scholar
Ahlborn, C., Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J., ‘The Antitrust Economics of Tying: A Farewell to Per Se Illegality Antitrust in the U.S. and EU: Converging or Diverging Paths’ (2004) 49 Antitrust Bulletin 287Google Scholar
Ahlborn, C., Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J. ‘The Logic & Limits of the Exceptional Circumstances Test in Magill and IMS Health’ (2004) 28 Fordham International Law Journal 1109Google Scholar
Alban, D., ‘Rambus v Infineon: Patent Disclosures in Standard-Setting Organizations’ (2004) 19 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 309Google Scholar
Ali, A. N. A., ‘Comparison Study between IPV4 & IPV6’ (2012) 9 International Journal of Computer Science Issues 314Google Scholar
Almeling, D.S., ‘Four Reasons to Enact a Federal Trade Secrets Act’ (2009) 19 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 770Google Scholar
‘Altera v. Clear Logic: 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Circuit, 2005)’ (2007) 22(1) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 391Google Scholar
Anderson, P. and Tushman, M. L., ‘Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change’ (1990) 35 Administrative Science Quarterly 604Google Scholar
Andrews, J. G. and others, ‘What Will 5 G Be?’ (2014) 32 IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 1065Google Scholar
Angelov, M., ‘The “Exceptional Circumstances” Test: Implications for Frand Commitments from the Essential Facilities Doctrine Under Article 102 TFEU’ (2014) 10 European Competition Journal 37Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., ‘Technological Knowledge as an Essential Facility’ (2007) 17 Journal of Evolutionary Economics 451Google Scholar
Ard, B., ‘More Property Rules than Property? The Right to Exclude in Patent and Copyright’ (2019) 68 Emory Law Journal 685Google Scholar
Areeda, P., ‘Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles’ (1989) 58 Antitrust Law Journal 841Google Scholar
Asay, C. D., ‘Software’s Copyright Anticommons’ (2016) 66 Emory Law Journal 265Google Scholar
Atzori, L., Iera, A. and Morabito, G., ‘The Internet of Things: A Survey’ (2010) 54 Computer Networks 2787Google Scholar
Ballardini, R. M., ‘Software Patents in Europe: The Technical Requirement Dilemma’ (2008) 3 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 563Google Scholar
Baron, J. and Spulber, D., ‘Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database’ (2018) 27 Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 462Google Scholar
Baron, J. and Spulber, D. ‘The Software Patent Thicket: A Matter of Disclosure’ (2009) 6 SCRIPTed 207Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J. and Swanson, D. G., ‘Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, And Control of Market Power’ (2005) 73 Antitrust Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Beebe, B., ‘An Empirical Study of US Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978–2005’ (2008) 156 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 549Google Scholar
Bekkers, R., Bongard, R. and Nuvolari, A., ‘An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Essential Patent Claims in Compatibility Standards’ (2011) 40 Research Policy 1001Google Scholar
Bell, A. and Parchomovsky, G., ‘Restructuring Copyright Infringement’ (2020) 98 Texas Law Review 689Google Scholar
Bender, G.A., ‘Clash of the Titans: The Territoriality of Patent Law vs. The European Union’ (2000) 40 Idea 49Google Scholar
Bendix, K., ‘Copyright Damages: Incorporating Reasonable Royalty from Patent Law’ (2012) 27 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 527Google Scholar
Besen, S. and Farrell, J., ‘The Role of the ITU in Standardization: Pre-Eminence, Impotence or Rubber Stamp?’ (1991) 15 Telecommunications Policy 311Google Scholar
Bharadwaj, A. and Verma, D., ‘China’s First Injunction in Standard Essential Patent Litigation’ (2017) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 717Google Scholar
Bi, Q., Zysman, G. I. and Menkes, H., ‘Wireless Mobile Communications at the Start of the 21st Century’ [2001] IEEE Communications Magazine 110Google Scholar
Biddle, B. and others, ‘The Expanding Role and Importance of Standards in the Information and Communications Technology Industry’ (2012) 52 Jurimetrics 177Google Scholar
Blair, R. D. and Esquibel, A. K., ‘The Microsoft Muddle: A Caveat Symposium: Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice’ (1995) 40 Antitrust Bulletin 257Google Scholar
Blind, K., ‘An Economic Analysis of Standards Competition: The Example of ISO ODF and OOXML Standards’ (2011) 35 Telecommunications Policy 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, W. S., ‘Tying Arrangements and the Leverage Problem’ (1957) 67 Yale Law Journal 19Google Scholar
Bradford, A., ‘International Antitrust Negotiations and the False Hope of the WTO’ (2007) 48 Harvard International Law Journal 383Google Scholar
Brummer, C., ‘Why Soft Law Dominates International Finance—and Not Trade’ (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 623Google Scholar
Budzinski, O., ‘The International Competition Network: Prospects and Limits on the Road towards International Competition Governance’ (2004) 8 Competition and Change 223Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. R. and Melamed, A. D., ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’ (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review 1089Google Scholar
Carlton, D. W. and Waldman, M., ‘The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries’ (2002) 33 The RAND Journal of Economics 194Google Scholar
Cashore, B., ‘Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority’ (2002) 15 Governance 503Google Scholar
Chang, E. K., ‘Expanding Definition of Monopoly Leveraging’ (2009) 17 University of Miami Business Law Review 325Google Scholar
Chao, B., ‘Lost Profits in a Multicomponent World’ (2018) 59 Boston College Law Review 1321Google Scholar
Chiao, B., Lerner, J. and Tirole, J., ‘The Rules of Standard‐setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis’ (2007) 38 The RAND Journal of Economics 905Google Scholar
Church, J. and Gandal, N., ‘Network Effects, Software Provision, and Standardization’ (1992) 40 The Journal of Industrial Economics 85Google Scholar
Coase, R., ‘The Problem of Social Cost’ (1960) 3 Journal of Law and Economics 1Google Scholar
Codding, G. A., ‘The International Telecommunication Union: 130 Years of Telecommunications Regulation’ (1994) 23 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 501Google Scholar
Congleton, R. D., ‘The Logic of Collective Action and Beyond’ (2015) 164 Public Choice 217Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L., ‘Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing’ (2013) 79 Antitrust Law Journal 47Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L. ‘A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and Other Patent Pledges’ (2015) 2 Utah Law Review 479Google Scholar
Cotropia, C. A. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Copying in Patent Law’ (2008) 87 North Carolina Law Review 1421Google Scholar
Cotter, T. F., ‘Intellectual Property and the Essential Facilities Doctrine’ (1999) 44 Antitrust Bulletin 211Google Scholar
Cotter, T. F. ‘Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies and Antitrust Responses’ (2009) 34 Journal of Corporation Law 1151Google Scholar
Cotter, T. F. ‘Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties’ (2013) 22 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 311Google Scholar
Craig, J. A., ‘Deconstructing Wonderland: Making Sense of Software Patents in a Post-Alice World’ (2017) 32 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 359Google Scholar
Cremers, K. and others, ‘Patent Litigation in Europe’ (2017) 44 European Journal of Law and Economics 1Google Scholar
Dai, J., Deng, Z. and Jung, S. K., ‘Antitrust Enforcement against Standard Essential Patents in China’ (2017) 62 The Antitrust Bulletin 453Google Scholar
David, P. A., ‘Clio and the Economics of QWERTY’ (1985) 75 American Economic Review 332Google Scholar
DeBriyn, J., ‘Shedding Light on Copyright Trolls: An Analysis of Mass Copyright Litigation in the Age of Statutory Damages’ (2012) 19 UCLA Entertainment Law Review 79Google Scholar
Demestichas, P. and others, ‘Emerging Air Interfaces and Management Technologies for the 5 G Era’ (2017) 2017 EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 184Google Scholar
Demsetz, H., ‘When Does the Rule of Liability Matter?’ (1972) 1 The Journal of Legal Studies 13Google Scholar
Depoorter, B., ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules and Patent Market Failure’ (2008) 01 Erasmus Law Review 59Google Scholar
Depoorter, B. ‘Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Age: When the Remedy Is the Wrong’ (2019) 66 UCLA Law Review 400Google Scholar
Doherty, B., ‘Just What Are Essential Facilities?’ (2001) 38 Common Market Law Review 397Google Scholar
Dolmans, M., ‘Standards for Standards European Union Law’ (2002) 26 Fordham International Law Journal 163, 181Google Scholar
Donahey, T. I., ‘Terminal Railroad Revisited: Using the Essential Facilities Doctrine to Ensure Accessibility to Internet Software Standards’ (1997) 25 AIPLA Quarterly Journal 277Google Scholar
Drexl, J., ‘International Competition Policy after Cancun: Placing a Singapore Issue on the WTO Development Agenda’ (2004) 27 World Competition 419Google Scholar
Duan, C., ‘Internet of Infringing Things: The Effect of Computer Interface Copyrights on Technology Standards’ (2019) 45 Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Dufaux, F., Sullivan, G. J. and Ebrahimi, T., ‘The JPEG XR Image Coding Standard [Standards in a Nutshell]’ (2009) 26 IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 195Google Scholar
Economides, N., ‘The Microsoft Antitrust Case’ (2001) 1 Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 7Google Scholar
Economides, N. and Lianos, I., ‘Elusive Antitrust Standard on Bundling in Europe and in the United States in the Aftermath of the Microsoft Cases’ (2009) 76 Antitrust Law Journal 483Google Scholar
Economides, N. and Salop, S. C., ‘Competition and Integration Among Complements, and Network Market Structure’ (1992) 40 The Journal of Industrial Economics 105Google Scholar
Economides, N. and White, L. J., ‘Access and Interconnection Pricing: How Efficient Is the “Efficient Component Pricing Rule”?’ (1995) 40 The Antitrust Bulletin 557Google Scholar
Eilmansberger, T., ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under Art. 82: What Is the State of Affairs after IMS Health and Microsoft?’ (2005) 16 King’s Law Journal 329Google Scholar
Elhauge, E., ‘Defining Better Monopolization Standards’ (2003) 56 Stanford Law Review 253Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. G., ‘Designing Antitrust Rules for Assessing Unilateral Practices: A Neo-Chicago Approach’ (2005) 72 University of Chicago Law Review 73Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J., ‘Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules’ (2005) 1 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 97Google Scholar
Evrard, S. J., ‘Essential Facilities in the European Union: Bronner and Beyond’ (2004) 10 Columbia Journal of European Law 491Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and others, ‘Standard-Setting, Patents and Hold-Up’ (2007) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 603Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and Saloner, G., ‘Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation’ (1985) 16 The RAND Journal of Economics 70Google Scholar
First, H., ‘Microsoft and the Evolution of the Intellectual Property Concept’ [2006] Wisconsin Law Review 1369Google Scholar
Fox, E., ‘Competition Law and the Millennium Round’ (1999) 2 Journal of International Economic Law 665Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., ‘Legitimacy in the International System’ (1988) 82 The American Journal of International Law 705Google Scholar
Frischmann, B. and Waller, S. W., ‘Revitalizing Essential Facilities’ (2008) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Funk, J. L., ‘The Co-Evolution of Technology and Methods of Standard Setting: The Case of the Mobile Phone Industry’ (2008) 19 Journal of Evolutionary Economics 73Google Scholar
Galetovic, A. and Haber, S., ‘Innovation Under Threat? An Assessment of the Evidence for Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking in SEP-Intensive, IT Industries’ (2016) 3 Competition Policy International JournalGoogle Scholar
Galetovic, A. and Haber, S. ‘The Fallacies of Patent Holdup Theory’ (2017) 13(1) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 1Google Scholar
Gandal, N., ‘Compatibility, Standardization and Network Effects: Some Policy Implications’ (2002) 18 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 80Google Scholar
Gandal, N. and Shy, O., ‘Standardization Policy and International Trade’ (2001) 53 Journal of International Economics 363Google Scholar
Geiger, C. and others, ‘Declaration A Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law’ (2010) 1 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 119Google Scholar
Geiger, C., Gervais, D. J. and Senftleben, M., ‘The Three Step Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law’ (2014) 29 American University International Law Review 581Google Scholar
Genschel, P., ‘How Fragmentation Can Improve Co-Ordination: Setting Standards in International Telecommunications’ (1997) 18 Organization Studies 603Google Scholar
Gerardin, D., ‘Limiting the Scope of Article 82 EC: What Can the EU Learn from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Judgment in Trinko in the Wake of Microsoft, IMS and Deutsche Telekom?’ (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 1519Google Scholar
Gerardin, D., Layne-Farrar, A. and Padilla, A. J., ‘The Complements Problem within Standard Setting: Assessing the Evidence on Royalty Stacking’ (2008) 14 Boston University Journal of Science, Technology and Law 144Google Scholar
Gerber, D.J ., ‘Rethinking the Monopolist’s Duty to Deal: A Legal and Economic Critique of the Doctrine of “Essential Facilities”’ (1988) 74 Virginia Law Review 1069Google Scholar
Gervais, D. J., ‘Towards a New Core International Copyright Norm: The Reverse Three-Step Test’ (2005) 9 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 1Google Scholar
Gilbert, R. J. and Katz, M. L., ‘Should Good Patents Come in Small Packages? A Welfare Analysis of Intellectual Property Bundling’ (2006) 24 International Journal of Industrial Organization 931Google Scholar
Ginsburg, D. H. and others, ‘The Troubling Use of Antitrust to Regulate FRAND Licensing’ (2015) 10 CPI Antitrust Chronicle 2Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C., ‘Copyright, Common Law and Sui Generis Protection of Databases in the United States and Abroad’ (1997) 66 University of Cincinnati Law Review 151Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J. C. ‘Towards Supranational Copyright Law? The WTO Panel Decision and the “Three-Step Test” for Copyright Exceptions’ (2001) 3 Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur 7Google Scholar
Giocoli, N., ‘Competition versus Property Rights: American Antitrust Law, the Freiburg School, and the Early Years of European Competition Policy’ (2009) 5 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 747Google Scholar
Glazer, K., ‘The IMS Health Case: A US Perspective’ (2006) 13 George Mason Law Review 1197Google Scholar
Goold, P. R., ‘The Interpretive Argument for a Balanced Three-Step Test?’ (2017) 33 American University International Law Review 187Google Scholar
Grasso, R., ‘The ECJ Ruling in Huawei and the Right to Seek Injunctions Based on FRAND-Encumbered SEPs under EU Competition Law: One Step Forward’ (2016) 39 World Competition 213Google Scholar
Gratz, J. A. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Platforms and Interoperability in Oracle v Google’ (2018) 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 603Google Scholar
Guan, W., ‘Diversified FRAND Enforcement and TRIPS Integrity’ (2018) 17 World Trade Review 91Google Scholar
Guzman, A. T. and Meyer, T. L., ‘International Soft Law’ (2010) 2 Journal of Legal Analysis 171Google Scholar
Hancock, P., ‘From State Street Bank to CLS Bank and Back: Reforming Software Patents to Promote Innovation’ (2013) 16 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 425Google Scholar
Harz, M. H., ‘Dominance and Duty in the European Union: A Look through Microsoft Windows at the Essential Facilities Doctrine Comment’ (1997) 11 Emory International Law Review 189Google Scholar
Hay, G. A., ‘A Monopolist’s “Duty to Deal”: The Briar Patch Revisited’ (2002) 3 Sedona Conference Journal 1Google Scholar
Hayek, F., ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’ (1945) 35 American Economic Review 519Google Scholar
Hiertz, G. R. and others, ‘The IEEE 802.11 Universe’ (2010) IEEE Communications Magazine 62Google Scholar
Holzapfel, H. and Sarnoff, J. D., ‘A Cross-Atlantic Dialog on Experimental Use and Research Tools’ (2008) 48 IDEA Intellectual Property Law Review 123Google Scholar
Hou, L., ‘Qualcomm: How China Has Invalidated Traditional Business Models on Standard Essential Patents’ (2016) 7 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 686Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H., ‘Symposium: Intellectual Property Rights and Federal Antitrust Policy – Introduction Symposium: Intellectual Property Rights and Federal Antitrust Policy: Introduction’ (1999) 24 Journal of Corporation Law 477Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, H. ‘Standards Ownership and Competition Policy’ (2007) 48 Boston College Law Review 87Google Scholar
Huang, Y., Wang, E. X.-R. and Zhang, R. X., ‘Essential Facilities Doctrine and Its Application in Intellectual Property Space under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law’ (2015) 22 George Mason Law Review 1103Google Scholar
Hylton, K. N., ‘Economic Rents and Essential Facilities’ (1991) Brigham Young University Law Review 1243Google Scholar
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, ‘San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea’ (1995) November–December 1995 International Review of the Red Cross 595Google Scholar
Jacobs, K., Procter, R. N. and Williams, R. A., ‘The Making of Standards: Looking inside the Work Groups’ (2001) 39 IEEE Communications Magazine 102Google Scholar
Ji, H. H., ‘District Courts versus the USITC: Considering Exclusionary Relief for F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents Note’ (2014) 21 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 169Google Scholar
Jin, L. and Ying, Y., ‘Why Copyright Protection Falls Behind the Requirement for Protecting Graphic User Interfaces: Case Studies on Limitations of Protection for GUIs in China’ (2012) 3 IP Theory 6Google Scholar
Kaplow, L., ‘The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal’ (1984) 97 Harvard Law Review 1813Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. and Shavell, S., ‘Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis’ (1996) 109 Harvard Law Review 713Google Scholar
Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C., ‘Systems Competition and Network Effects’ (1994) 8 The Journal of Economic Perspectives 93Google Scholar
Keil, T., ‘De Facto Standardization through Alliances – Lessons from Bluetooth’ (2002) 26 Telecommunications Policy 205Google Scholar
Kens, P., ‘Property, Liberty and the Rights of the Community: Lessons from Munn v Illinois’ (2011) 30 Buffalo Public International Law Journal 157Google Scholar
Keszbom, A. and Goldman, A. V., ‘No Shortcut to Antitrust Analysis: The Twisted Journey of the “Essential Facilities” Doctrine’ (1996) 1996 Columbia Business Law Review 1Google Scholar
Kim, J. and Lee, I., ‘802.11 WLAN: History and New Enabling MIMO Techniques for next Generation Standards’ (2015) 53 IEEE Communications Magazine 134Google Scholar
Klein, H., ‘ICANN and Internet Governance: Leveraging Technical Coordination to Realize Global Public Policy’ (2002) 18 The Information Society 193Google Scholar
Koelman, K. J., ‘Fixing the Three-Step Test’ (2006) 28 European Intellectual Property Review 407Google Scholar
Kolasky, W. J., ‘Network Effects: A Contrarian View’ (1999) 7 George Mason Law Review 577Google Scholar
Krechmer, K., ‘The Fundamental Nature of Standards: Technical Perspective’ (2000) 38 IEEE Communications Magazine 70Google Scholar
Kreiss, R. A., ‘Patent Protection for Computer Programs and Mathematical Algorithms: The Constitutional Limitations on Patentable Subject Matter’ (1999) 29 New Mexico Law Review 31Google Scholar
Kreuzbauer, G., ‘Topics in Contemporary Legal Argumentation: Some Remarks on the Topical Nature of Legal Argumentation in the Continental Law Tradition’ (2008) 28 Informal Logic 71Google Scholar
Krier, J. E. and Schwab, S. J., ‘Property Rules and Liability Rules: The Cathederal in Another Light’ (1995) 70 New York University Law Review 440Google Scholar
Lang, J. T., ‘Defining Legitimate Competition: Companies’ Duties to Supply Competitors and Access to Essential Facilities’ (1994) 18 Fordham International Law Journal 437Google Scholar
Lao, M., ‘Networks, Access and “Essential Facilities”: From Terminal Railroad to Microsoft’ (2009) 62 Southern Methodist University Law Review 557Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A., ‘Moving Past the SEP Rand Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing’ (2013) 21 George Mason Law Review 1093Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A., Padilla, A. J. and Schmalensee, R., ‘Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organizations: Making Sense of Frand Commitments’ (2007) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 671Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A., Padilla, A. J. and Schmalensee, R. ‘Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments’ (2007) 74 Antitrust Law Journal 671Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A. and Salinger, M. A., ‘Bundling of RAND-Committed Patents’ (2016) 45 Research Policy 1155Google Scholar
Layne-Farrar, A. and Wong-Ervin, K. W., ‘Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Damages: An Economic and Comparative Analysis of the Case Law from China, the European Union, India, and the United States’ (2017) 8 Jindal Global Law Review 127Google Scholar
Leal-Arcas, R., ‘China’s Attitude to Multilateralism in International Economic Law and Governance: Challenges for the World Trading System’ (2010) 11 The Journal of World Investment & Trade 259Google Scholar
Leiner, B. M. and others, ‘A Brief History of the Internet’ (2009) 39 Computer Communication Review 22Google Scholar
Lemley, M., ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Standards-Setting Organizations’ (2002) 90 California Law Review 1889Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘Ten Things to Do about Patent Holdup of Standards (and One Not To)’ (2007) 48 Boston College Law Review 148Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights’ (2008) 61 Stanford Law Review 311Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘Distinguishing Lost Profits from Reasonable Royalties’ (2009) 51 William and Mary Law Review 655Google Scholar
Lemley, M. ‘Contracting Around Liability Rules’ (2012) 100 California Law Review 463Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A. and Shapiro, C., ‘A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents’ (2013) 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1135Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A. and Weiser, P. J., ‘Should Property or Liability Rules Govern Information?’ (2006) 85 Texas Law Review 783Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J., ‘A Model of Forum Shopping’ (2006) 96 American Economic Review 1091Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. ‘Standard-Essential Patents’ (2015) 123 Journal of Political Economy 547Google Scholar
Levanen, T. and others, ‘Radio Interface Evolution towards 5 G and Enhanced Local Area Communications’ (2014) 2 IEEE Access 1005Google Scholar
Leveque, F., ‘Innovation, Leveraging and Essential Facilities: Interoperability Licensing in the EU Microsoft Case’ (2005) 28 World Competition 71Google Scholar
Levi, E. H., ‘The Antitrust Laws and Monopoly’ (1947) 14 The University of Chicago Law Review 153Google Scholar
Li, B. C., ‘The Global Convergence of FRAND Licensing Practices: Towards Interoperable Legal Standards Patent Law’ (2016) 31 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 429Google Scholar
Li, Y., ‘The Current Dilemma and Future of Software Patenting’ (2019) 50 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 823Google Scholar
Li, Y. B., ‘Antitrust Correction for Qualcomm’s SEPs Package Licensing and Its Flexibility in China’ (2016) 47 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 336Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E., ‘The Fable of the Keys’ (1990) 33 Journal of Law & Economics 1Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E. ‘Path Dependence, Lock-In and History’ (1995) 11 Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 205Google Scholar
Lim, A. S., ‘Inter-Consortia Battles in Mobile Payments Standardisation’ (2008) 7 Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 202Google Scholar
Lim, D., ‘Beyond Microsoft: Intellectual Property, Peer Production and the Law’s Concern with Market Dominance’ (2008) 18 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 291Google Scholar
Lipsky, A. B. and Sidak, J. G., ‘Essential Facilities’ (1998) 51 Stanford Law Review 1187Google Scholar
Liu, H.-W., ‘International Standards in Flux: A Balkanized ICT Standard-Setting Paradigm and Its Implications for the WTO’ (2014) 17 Journal of International Economic Law 551Google Scholar
Liu, J., ‘Copyright Injunctions after EBay: An Empirical Study’ (2012) 16 Lewis & Clark Law Review 215Google Scholar
Longhofer, F. K., ‘Patentability of Computer Programs Comment’ (1982) 34 Baylor Law Review 125Google Scholar
Lucas, A., ‘For a Reasonable Interpretation of the Three-Step Test’ (2010) 32 European Intellectual Property Review 277Google Scholar
MacCord, A., ‘Infringing a Standard-Essential Patent, or Not [Patent Reviews]’ (2015) 2 IEEE Power Electronics Magazine 14Google Scholar
Mace, A. C., ‘TRIPS, EBay and Denials of Injunctive Relief: Is Article 31 Compliance Everything?’ (2009) X Columbia Science and Technology Journal 233Google Scholar
Marsden, P. and Bishop, S., ‘Intellectual Leaders Still Need Ground to Stand On’ (2007) 3 European Competition Journal 315Google Scholar
Marshall, J., ‘Aggravated or Exemplary Damages for Copyright Infringement’ (2017) 39 European Intellectual Property Review 565Google Scholar
Marsnik, S. J. and Thomas, R., ‘Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject Matter Sands: Does Europe Provide a Solution to the Software & Business Method Patent Problem?’ (2011) 34 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 227Google Scholar
McAllister, B. P., ‘Lord Hale and Business Affected with a Public Interest’ (1930) 43 Harvard Law Review 759Google Scholar
McIntyre, S., ‘Trying to Agree on Three Articles of Law: The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Chinese Copyright Law’ (2010) 1 Cybaris 62Google Scholar
Meddeb, A., ‘Internet of Things Standards: Who Stands out from the Crowd?’ (2016) 54 IEEE Communications Magazine 40Google Scholar
Menell, P. S., ‘API Copyrightability Bleak House: Unraveling and Repairing the Oracle v. Google Jurisdictional Mess’ (2016) 31 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1515Google Scholar
Menell, P. S. ‘Rise of the API Copyright Dead: An Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software’ (2017) 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 305Google Scholar
Merges, R. P., ‘Of Property Rights, Coase and Intellectual Property’ (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review 2655Google Scholar
Merges, R. P. ‘Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations’ (1996) 84 California Law Review 1293Google Scholar
Miao, M. and Jayakar, K., ‘Mobile Payments in Japan, South Korea and China: Cross-Border Convergence or Divergence of Business Models?’ (2016) 40 Telecommunications Policy 182Google Scholar
Miyashita, Y., ‘International Protection of Computer Software’ (1991) 11 The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law 41Google Scholar
Möschel, W., ‘The Proper Scope of Government Viewed from an Ordoliberal Perspective: The Example of Competition Policy’ (2001) 157 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 3Google Scholar
Mowery, D. C. and Simcoe, T., ‘Is the Internet a US Invention?—An Economic and Technological History of Computer Networking’ (2002) 31 NELSON + WINTER + 20 1369Google Scholar
Mueller, M. M. and Badiei, F., ‘Governing Internet Territory: ICANN, Sovereignty Claims, Property Rights and Country Code Top-Level Domains’ (2017) XVIII Columbia Science and Technology Journal 435Google Scholar
National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), ‘Final Report on the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works’ (1981) 3 The John Marshall of Information Technology & Privacy Law 53Google Scholar
Nimmer, D., ‘Investigating the Hypothetical Reasonable Royalty for Copyright Infringement’ (2019) 99 Boston University Law Review 1Google Scholar
Ohta, M., ‘IETF and Internet Standards’ (1998) IEEE Communications Magazine 126Google Scholar
O’Rourke, M., ‘Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law’ (2000) 100 Columbia Law Review 1177Google Scholar
Ozcan, P. and Santos, F. M., ‘The Market That Never Was: Turf Wars and Failed Alliances in Mobile Payments’ (2015) 36 Strategic Management Journal 1486Google Scholar
Pelkmans, J., ‘Making EU Network Markets Competitive’ (2001) 17 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 432Google Scholar
Phillips, J., ‘EBay’s Effect on Copyright Injunctions: When Property Rules Give Way to Liability Rules II. Copyright – Note’ – Berkeley Technology Law Journal 405Google Scholar
Pitofsky, R., Patterson, D. and Hooks, J., ‘The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law’ (2002) 70 Antitrust Law Journal 443Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. M., ‘On the Choice between Liability Rules and Property Rules’ (1980) XVIII Economic Inquiry 233Google Scholar
Portugal-Perez, A., Reyes, J.-D. and Wilson, J. S., ‘Beyond the Information Technology Agreement: Harmonisation of Standards and Trade in Electronics’ (2010) 33 The World Economy 1870Google Scholar
Posner, R. A., ‘Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation’ (1968) 21 Stanford Law Review 548Google Scholar
Puffert, D. J., ‘Path Dependence in Spatial Networks: The Standardization of Railway Track Gauge’ (2002) 39 Explorations in Economic History 282Google Scholar
Radomsky, L., ‘Sixteen Years after the Passage of the US Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Is International Protection Working’ (2000) 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1050Google Scholar
Ratner, J. R., ‘Should There Be an Essential Facility Doctrine’ (1988) 21 U.C. Davis Law Review 327Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., ‘Governing the Internet’ (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 491Google Scholar
Raymond, M. and DeNardis, L., ‘Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Institution’ (2015) 7 International Theory 572Google Scholar
Reiffen, D. and Kleit, A. N., ‘Terminal Railroad Revisited: Foreclosure of an Essential Facility or Simple Horizontal Monopoly?’ (1990) 33 The Journal of Law and Economics 419Google Scholar
Risberg, R. L. Jr, ‘Five Years without Infringement Litigation under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Unmasking the Spectre of Chip Piracy in an Era of Diverse and Incompatible Process Technologies Comment’ Wisconsin Law Review 241Google Scholar
Ritter, C., ‘Refusal to Deal and “Essential Facilities”: Does Intellectual Property Require Special Deference Compared to Tangible Property?’ (2005) 28 World Competition 281Google Scholar
Rochet, J.-C. and Tirole, J. (2003) 1 Journal of the European Economic Association 990Google Scholar
Rose, I. and Nqwe, C., ‘The Ordoliberal Tradition in the European Union, Its Influence on Article 82 EC and the IBA’s Comments on the Article 82 EC Discussion Paper Papers from the Chicago Conference’ (2007) 3 Competition Law International 8Google Scholar
Russell, A. L., ‘“Rough Consensus and Running Code” and the Internet-OSI Standards War’ (2006) 28 IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 48Google Scholar
Rysman, M., ‘Competition between Networks: A Study of the Market for Yellow Pages’ (2004) 71 The Review of Economic Studies 483Google Scholar
Rysman, M. and Simcoe, T., ‘Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations’ (2008) 54 Management Science 1920Google Scholar
Saint-Antoine, P. H. and Trego, G. D., ‘Solutions to Patent Hold-up beyond FRAND: An SOS to SSOs’ (2014) 59 The Antitrust Bulletin 183Google Scholar
Saltzman, J., Chatterjee, S. and Raman, M., ‘A Framework for ICT Standards Creation: The Case of ITU-T Standard H.350’ (2008) 33 Information Systems 285Google Scholar
Samuelson, P., ‘Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?’ (2009) 93 Minnesota Law Review 1943Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. ‘The Past, Present and Future of Software Copyright Interoperability Rules in the European Union and United States’ (2012) 34 European Intellectual Property Review 229Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. ‘Unbundling Fair Uses’ (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2537Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. ‘The Uneasy Case for Software Copyrights Revisited’ (2010) 79 George Washington Law Review 1746Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. and Wheatland, T., ‘Statutory Damages in Copyright Law: A Remedy in Need of Reform’ (2009) 51 William and Mary Law Review 439Google Scholar
Sandler, T., ‘Overcoming Global and Regional Collective Action Impediments’ (2010) 1 Global Policy 40Google Scholar
Schaffer, G. C. and Pollack, M. A., ‘Hard versus Soft Law in International Security’ (2011) 52 Boston College Law Review 1147Google Scholar
Senftleben, M., ‘Towards a Horizontal Standard for Limiting Intellectual Property Rights? WTO Panel Reports Shed Light on the Three-Step Test in Copyright Law and Related Tests in Patent and Trademark Law’ (2006) 37 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 407Google Scholar
Siebrasse, N. V. and Cotter, T. F., ‘Judicially Determined FRAND Royalties’ (2016) 68 Florida Law Review 929Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. and Lemley, M. A., ‘Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking’ (2007) 85 Texas Law Review 1992Google Scholar
Sheremata, W., ‘Barriers to Innovation: A Monopoly, Network Externalities, and the Speed of Innovation’ (1997) 42 The Antitrust Bulletin 937Google Scholar
Sherlock, I., ‘Wi-Fi Alliance: Connecting Everyone and Everything, Everywhere’ (2017) 1 IEEE Communications Standards Magazine 6Google Scholar
Sidak, J. G., ‘The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties’ (2013) 9 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 931Google Scholar
Sidak, J. G. ‘What Aggregate Royalty Do Manufacturers of Mobile Phones Pay to License Standard-Essential Patents?’ (2016) 1 The Criterion Journal on Innovation 701Google Scholar
Skitol, R. A., ‘Concerted Buying Power: Its Potential for Addressing the Patent Holdup Problem in Standard Setting Symposium: Buyer Power and Antitrust’ (2005) 72(2) Antitrust Law Journal 727Google Scholar
Smith, H. E., ‘Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information’ (2007) 116 Yale Law Journal 1742Google Scholar
Sokol, D. and Zheng, W., ‘FRAND in China’ (2013) 22 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 71Google Scholar
Stasik, E., ‘Royalty Rates and Licensing Strategies for Essential Patents on LTE (4 G) Telecommunication Standards’ (2010) 3 les Nouvelles 114Google Scholar
Stoeckli, W., ‘Topic and Argumentation: The Contribution of Viehweg and Perelman in the Field of Methodology as Applied to Law’ (1968) 54 Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 581Google Scholar
Strandburg, K. J., ‘Patent Fair Use 2.0’ (2011) 1 University of California Irvine Law Review 265Google Scholar
Strickling, L. E. and Hill, J. F., ‘Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance: Successes and Opportunities’ (2017) 2 Journal of Cyber Policy 296Google Scholar
Takigawa, T., ‘Standard-Essential Patents and the Japanese Competition Law in Comparison with China, the U.S. and the EU’ (2017) 62 The Antitrust Bulletin 483Google Scholar
Tassey, G., ‘Standardization in Technology-Based Markets’ (2000) 29 Research Policy 587Google Scholar
Taubman, A., ‘Rethinking TRIPS: “Adequate Remuneration” for Non-Voluntary Patent Licensing’ (2008) 11 Journal of International Economic Law 927Google Scholar
Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. and Suo, S., ‘Influences on Standards Adoption in de Facto Standardization’ (2011) 12 Information Technology Management 357Google Scholar
Torremans, P., ‘Compensation for Intellectual Property Infringement: Admissibility of Punitive Damages and Compensation for Moral Prejudice’ (2018) 40 European Intellectual Property Review 797Google Scholar
Trappey, A. J. C. and others, ‘A Review of Essential Standards and Patent Landscapes for the Internet of Things: A Key Enabler for Industry 4.0’ (2017) 33 Advanced Engineering Informatics 208Google Scholar
Troy, D. E., ‘Unclogging the Bottleneck: A New Essential Facility Doctrine’ (1983) 83 Columbia Law Review 441Google Scholar
Turney, J., ‘Defining the Limits of the EU Essential Facilities Doctrine on Intellectual Property Rights: The Primacy of Securing Optimal Innovation’ (2005) 3 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 179Google Scholar
von Lohmann, F., ‘The New Wave: Copyright and Software Interfaces in the Wake of Oracle v. Google’ (2018) 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (Special Issue) 517Google Scholar
Waller, S. W., ‘National Laws and International Markets: Strategies of Cooperation and Harmonization in the Enforcement of Competition Law’ (1996) 18 Cardozo Law Review 1111Google Scholar
Waller, S. W. ‘Areeda, Epithets and Essential Facilities’ [2008] Wisconsin Law Review 359Google Scholar
Waller, S. W. and Tasch, W., ‘Harmonizing Essential Facilities’ (2010) 76 Antitrust Law Journal 741Google Scholar
Walsh, M. J., ‘Disclosure Requirements of 35 USC 112 and Software-Related Patent Applications: Debugging the System’ (1985) 18 Connecticut Law Review 855Google Scholar
Wan, Y., ‘Copyright Damages in China’ (2013) Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 517Google Scholar
Warlouzet, L., ‘The EEC/EU as an Evolving Compromise between French Dirigism and German Ordoliberalism (1957–1995)’ (2019) 57 JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 77Google Scholar
Webb, W., ‘The Role of Networking Standards in Building the Internet of Things’ (2012) 1 Communications & Strategies 57Google Scholar
Werden, G. J., ‘The Law and Economics of the Essential Facility Doctrine’ (1987) 32 St Louis University Law Journal 433Google Scholar
Whinston, M. D., ‘Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion’ (1990) 80 The American Economic Review 837Google Scholar
Wiegand, T. and Sullivan, G. J., ‘The H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard [Standards in a Nutshell]’ (2007) 24 IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 148Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E., ‘Symposium on Antitrust Law and Economics: Introduction’ (1979) 127 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 918Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. ‘Transactions-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations’ (1979) 22 Journal of Law and Economics 233Google Scholar
Wilson, J., ‘The IETF: Laying the Net’s Asphalt’ (1998) 31 Computer 116Google Scholar
Wong-Ervin, K. W., ‘An Update on the Most Recent Version of China’s Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights’ [2017] Competition Policy International 1Google Scholar
Yarsky, J., ‘Hastening Harmonization in European Union Patent Law through a Preliminary Reference Power’ (2017) 40 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 167Google Scholar
Wu, Y. and Xiong, Y., ‘Comparison of the Bolar Exception in China and the United States’ (2008) 3 China Patents & Trademarks 13Google Scholar
Zhang, G., ‘Rules for Denying Copyright Permanent Injunctions in China: Fog Needs to Be Cleared Part I’ (2015) Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 341Google Scholar
Zingales, N. and Kanevskaia, O., ‘The IEEE-SA Patent Policy Update under the Lens of EU Competition Law’ (2016) 12 European Competition Journal 195, 201–205Google Scholar
Gilbert, R. J. and Shapiro, C., ‘An Economic Analysis of Unilateral Refusals to Licence Intellectual Property’ (1996) 93 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 12749Google Scholar
Goodman, D. J. and Myers, R. A., ‘3 G Cellular Standards and Patents’, 2005 International Conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing (2005)Google Scholar
Laporte, C. Y., April, A. and Renault, A., ‘Applying ISO/IEC Software Engineering Standards in Small Settings: Historical Perspectives and Initial Achievements’, Proceedings of the SPICE 2006 Conference, May 4–5, 2006, Luxembourg (Curran Associates, Inc)Google Scholar
Maathuis, I. and Smit, W. A., ‘The Battle between Standards: TCP/IP vs OSI Victory through Path Dependency or by Quality?’, Proceedings of the Third IEEE Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (IEEE 2003)Google Scholar
Tan, L. and Wang, N., ‘Future Internet: The Internet of Things’, 2010 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE) (2010)Google Scholar
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. and Sorensen, C., ‘Desperately Seeking the Infrastructure in IS Research: Conceptualization of “Digital Convergence” As Co-Evolution of Social and Technical Infrastructures’, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2010)Google Scholar
Waffenschmidt, E., ‘Wireless Power for Mobile Devices’, 2011 IEEE 33rd International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) (2011)Google Scholar
Weitzel, T., Wendt, O. and Westarp, F. V., ‘Reconsidering Network Effect Theory’, European Conference on Information Systems Proceedings (2000)Google Scholar
Blackburn, S., The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2016)Google Scholar
Brinsmead, S., ‘Delegated Regulation: Normalisation’, Elgar Encyclopaedia of International Economic Law (Elgar 2017)Google Scholar
Hall, B., ‘Patents’, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan 2008)Google Scholar
‘Mobile Air Interface’, Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary (2nd ed., CRC Press 2002)Google Scholar
‘Modularity’, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed., McGraw-Hill 2003)Google Scholar
Parisi, F., ‘Coase Theorem’, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan 2008)Google Scholar
Riffel, C., ‘Unfair Competition, International Protection’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 1989)Google Scholar
Biddle, B., White, A. and Woods, S., ‘How Many Standards in a Laptop? (And Other Empirical Questions)’, 2010 ITU-T Kaleidoscope: Beyond the Internet? – Innovations for Future Networks and Services (2010)Google Scholar
Bornkamm, J., ‘WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement: Intellectual Property Litigation under the Civil Law Legal System; Experience in Germany’ (2004) WIPO/ACE/2/3 <www.wipo.int> accessed 24 May 2019+accessed+24+May+2019>Google Scholar
Brown, W., Engle, M. and Rafert, G., ‘Independent Review of the ICANN Nominating Committee: Assessment Report’ <www.analysisgroup.com> accessed 24 February 2018+accessed+24+February+2018>Google Scholar
‘DG Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 to Exclusionary Abuses’ (European Commission, DG Competition 2005) <http://ec.europa.eu > accessed 8 October 2017+accessed+8+October+2017>Google Scholar
‘Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Compulsory Licences and/or Government Use (Part I)’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2014) SCP/21/4 Rev. <www.wipo.int> accessed 5 August 2017+accessed+5+August+2017>Google Scholar
‘Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Prior Use’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2013) SCP/20/6 <www.wipo.int> accessed 19 September 2017+accessed+19+September+2017>Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission, ‘Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act (Unofficial Translation)’ (Japan Fair Trade Commission 2007, revised 2016) accessed 21 May 2020Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission ‘The Guidelines for Exclusionary Private Monopolization under the Antimonopoly Act (Tentative Translation)’ (Japan Fair Trade Commission 2009) <www.jftc.go.jp> accessed 24 May 2019+accessed+24+May+2019>Google Scholar
Kruger, L. G., ‘The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN?’ (Congressional Research Service 2016) accessed 21 May 2020Google Scholar
Motta, M. and de Streel, A., ‘Excessive Pricing in Competition Law: Never Say Never?’, The Pros and Cons of High Prices (Swedish Competition Authority 2007)Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ (OECD Publishing 2011)Google Scholar
‘Report on the International Patent System’ (World Intellectual Property Organization, Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 2008) SCP/12/3 Rev. <www.wipo.int> accessed 30 June 2019+accessed+30+June+2019>Google Scholar
Schultz, M. F. and Lippoldt, D. C., ‘Approaches to Protection of Undisclosed Information (Trade Secrets): Background Paper’ (OECD Publishing 2014) 62Google Scholar
‘Standing Committee on the Law of Patents: Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Experimental Use and/or Scientific Research’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2013) SCP/20/4 <www.wipo.int> accessed 19 January 2018+accessed+19+January+2018>Google Scholar
‘Study on Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information in the Internal Market, Final Study’ (European Commission 2013) <http://ec.europa.eu> accessed 26 August 2017+accessed+26+August+2017>Google Scholar
‘Survey on Compulsory Licences Granted by WIPO Member States to Address Anti-Competitive Uses of Intellectual Property Right’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2011) CDIP/4/4 Rev./Study/Inf/5 <www.wipo.int> accessed 4 August 2017+accessed+4+August+2017>Google Scholar
‘Unilateral Conduct Workbook Chapter 1: The Objectives and Principles of Unilateral Conduct Laws’ (International Competition Network 2012) <www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org> accessed 14 February 2018+accessed+14+February+2018>Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, ‘Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition’ (United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission 2007) <www.ftc.gov> accessed 24 May 2019+accessed+24+May+2019>Google Scholar
World Trade Organization, ‘World Trade Report 2005: Exploring the Links between Trade, Standards and the WTO’ (World Trade Organization 2005) <www.wto.org> accessed 16 January 2018+accessed+16+January+2018>Google Scholar
‘WTO Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products – Non-Tariff Measures Work Programme’ (World Trade Organization 2000) WTO Doc. G/IT/19Google Scholar
‘WTO Report (2017) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products’ (World Trade Organization 2017) WTO Doc. G/L/1200Google Scholar
Baron, J. and others, ‘Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and Their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights’ (2019) JRC 115004 <https://ec.europa.eu/jrc> accessed 16 May 2020+accessed+16+May+2020>Google Scholar
Bekkers, R. and Updegrove, A., ‘IPR Policies and Practices of a Representative Group of Standards Setting Organizations Worldwide’ (2013) <nap.edu> accessed 25 May 2020+accessed+25+May+2020>Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L., ‘A New Perspective on FRAND Royalties: Unwired Planet v Huawei’ (2017) <https://dc.law.utah.edu> accessed 16 February 2018+accessed+16+February+2018>Google Scholar
Evans, D. S., Zhang, V. Y. and Zhang, X., ‘Assessing Unfair Pricing under China´s Anti-Monopoly Law for Innovation-Intensive Industries’ (University of Chicago 2014) 687 <https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu> accessed 21 May 2019Google Scholar
Fliess, B. A. and Sauve, P., ‘Of Chips, Floppy Disks and Great Timing: Assessing the Information Technology Agreement’, Paper Prepared for the Institute Francais des Relations Internationales (IFRI) and the Tokyo Club Foundation for Global Studies (1997)Google Scholar
Larouche, P. and Zingales, N., ‘Injunctive Relief in FRAND Disputes in the EU? Intellectual Property and Competition Law at the Remedies Stage’ (Tilburg Law School 2017) No. 1 of 2017 <https://papers.ssrn.com> accessed 9 February 2018Google Scholar
Makiyama, R. S. and H.-L., ‘Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The Implications of the World Conference on International Telecommunication for International Trade’ (ECIPE Policy Briefs 2012) 12/2012 <www.econstor.eu> accessed 20 May 2019Google Scholar
McGowan, D., ‘The Apportionment Problem in Copyright Law’ (University of San Diego School of Law 2017) 17–307 <www.ssrn.com> accessed 2 May 2020Google Scholar
Siebrasse, N. V. and others, ‘Injunctive Relief’ <https://scholar.smu.edu> accessed 10 May 2019+accessed+10+May+2019>Google Scholar
‘A Brief History of Wi-Fi’ [2004] The Economist <www.economist.com> accessed 10 March 2018+accessed+10+March+2018>Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., ‘An Internet Whole and Free: Why Washington Was Right to Give up Control Essays’ (2017) 96 Foreign Affairs 14Google Scholar
Microsoft Corporation, ‘Supreme Court, Google v. Oracle: Brief of Microsoft Corporation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner’ (2019) <https://supremecourt.gov> accessed 22 June 2020.+accessed+22+June+2020.>Google Scholar
Aarnio, T., ‘Near Field Communication: Using NFC to Unlock Doors’ (Master’s Thesis, Aalto University 2013)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Closes Formal Proceedings against Qualcomm’ (24 November 2009) <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release> accessed 29 November 2017+accessed+29+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act (Tentative Translation)’ <www.jftc.go.jp> accessed 21 January 2018+accessed+21+January+2018>Google Scholar
Hesse, Renata B., Response to Electrical and Electronics Engineers Request for Business Review, 2 February 2015 <www.justice.gov> accessed 20 June 2020+accessed+20+June+2020>Google Scholar
‘About ETSI’ (ETSI) <www.etsi.org/about> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘About JEDEC’ (JEDEC) <www.jedec.org/about-jedec> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘About Mobile Technology and IMT-2000’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu.int> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
Alvestrand, H., ‘A Mission Statement for the IETF’ (29 April 2004) <https://tools.ietf.org> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
Band, J., ‘Interfaces on Trial 3.0’ (2019) <www.policybandwidth.com/interfaces-2–0> accessed 4 March 2020F+accessed+4+March+2020F>Google Scholar
Bradner, S., ‘IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures’ <https://tools.ietf.org> accessed 6 December 2017+accessed+6+December+2017>Google Scholar
‘Developing ISO Standards’ (International Organization for Standardization) <www.iso.org> accessed 22 July 2016+accessed+22+July+2016>Google Scholar
‘General Info’ (Blu-ray Disc) <www.blu-raydisc.com> accessed 10 March 2018+accessed+10+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘History of IEEE’ (IEEE) <www.ieee.org> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘ICN Factsheet and Key Messages’ (International Competition Network, April 2009) <www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org> accessed 9 February 2018+accessed+9+February+2018>Google Scholar
‘IEEE at a Glance’ (IEEE) <www.ieee.org> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘IEEE Standards Association Study Group Guidelines’ <http://standards.ieee.org> accessed 6 December 2017+accessed+6+December+2017>Google Scholar
‘International Organization for Standardization Website’ <www.iso.org/standards.html> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ‘Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN, 22 July 2017) <www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en> accessed 25 February 2018+accessed+25+February+2018>Google Scholar
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) <www.icann.org/> accessed 24 February 2018+accessed+24+February+2018>Google Scholar
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Beginner’s Guide to Participating in ICANN’ (ICANN) <www.icann.org> accessed 24 February 2018+accessed+24+February+2018>Google Scholar
‘ISO Membership Manual’ (International Organization for Standardization 2015) <www.iso.org> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘ISO/IEC Directives Part 1: Procedures for the Technical Work’ (2016) <www.iec.ch> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004 Standardization and Related Activities – General Vocabulary’ <www.iso.org/standard/39976.html> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘ISO/IEC Guide 59: 1994 Code of Good Practice for Standardization’ <www.iso.org/standard/23390.html> accessed 20 May 2019+accessed+20+May+2019>Google Scholar
‘ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2017–2020)’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu.int> accessed 12 March 2018+accessed+12+March+2018>Google Scholar
Kerr, S., ‘IETF Support for IPv6 Deployment’ (IETF Journal, 7 October 2007) <www.ietfjournal.org/ietf-support-for-ipv6-deployment/> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Membership Categories’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘OECD’ (OECD) <www.oecd.org/> accessed 14 March 2018+accessed+14+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Our History’ (Bluetooth) <www.bluetooth.com/about-us/our-history> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Popular Standards’ (International Organization for Standardization) <www.iso.org/popular-standards.html> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Specifications’ (Bluetooth) <www.bluetooth.com/specifications> accessed 25 January 2018+accessed+25+January+2018>Google Scholar
‘Submitting a Project Request’ (IEEE Standards Association – Developing Standards) <https://standards.ieee.org/develop/par.html> accessed 21 July 2016+accessed+21+July+2016>Google Scholar
‘The Framework of ITU-T’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/Pages/framework.aspx> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘The Tao of the IETF: A Novice’s Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force’ <www.ietf.org/tao.html> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘Unilateral Conduct’ <www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org> accessed 9 February 2018+accessed+9+February+2018>Google Scholar
Biddle, B., White, A. and Woods, S., ‘How Many Standards in a Laptop? (And Other Empirical Questions)’, 2010 ITU-T Kaleidoscope: Beyond the Internet? – Innovations for Future Networks and Services (2010)Google Scholar
Bornkamm, J., ‘WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement: Intellectual Property Litigation under the Civil Law Legal System; Experience in Germany’ (2004) WIPO/ACE/2/3 <www.wipo.int> accessed 24 May 2019+accessed+24+May+2019>Google Scholar
Brown, W., Engle, M. and Rafert, G., ‘Independent Review of the ICANN Nominating Committee: Assessment Report’ <www.analysisgroup.com> accessed 24 February 2018+accessed+24+February+2018>Google Scholar
‘DG Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 to Exclusionary Abuses’ (European Commission, DG Competition 2005) <http://ec.europa.eu > accessed 8 October 2017+accessed+8+October+2017>Google Scholar
‘Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Compulsory Licences and/or Government Use (Part I)’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2014) SCP/21/4 Rev. <www.wipo.int> accessed 5 August 2017+accessed+5+August+2017>Google Scholar
‘Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Prior Use’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2013) SCP/20/6 <www.wipo.int> accessed 19 September 2017+accessed+19+September+2017>Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission, ‘Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act (Unofficial Translation)’ (Japan Fair Trade Commission 2007, revised 2016) accessed 21 May 2020Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission ‘The Guidelines for Exclusionary Private Monopolization under the Antimonopoly Act (Tentative Translation)’ (Japan Fair Trade Commission 2009) <www.jftc.go.jp> accessed 24 May 2019+accessed+24+May+2019>Google Scholar
Kruger, L. G., ‘The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN?’ (Congressional Research Service 2016) accessed 21 May 2020Google Scholar
Motta, M. and de Streel, A., ‘Excessive Pricing in Competition Law: Never Say Never?’, The Pros and Cons of High Prices (Swedish Competition Authority 2007)Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ (OECD Publishing 2011)Google Scholar
‘Report on the International Patent System’ (World Intellectual Property Organization, Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 2008) SCP/12/3 Rev. <www.wipo.int> accessed 30 June 2019+accessed+30+June+2019>Google Scholar
Schultz, M. F. and Lippoldt, D. C., ‘Approaches to Protection of Undisclosed Information (Trade Secrets): Background Paper’ (OECD Publishing 2014) 62Google Scholar
‘Standing Committee on the Law of Patents: Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Experimental Use and/or Scientific Research’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2013) SCP/20/4 <www.wipo.int> accessed 19 January 2018+accessed+19+January+2018>Google Scholar
‘Study on Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information in the Internal Market, Final Study’ (European Commission 2013) <http://ec.europa.eu> accessed 26 August 2017+accessed+26+August+2017>Google Scholar
‘Survey on Compulsory Licences Granted by WIPO Member States to Address Anti-Competitive Uses of Intellectual Property Right’ (World Intellectual Property Organization 2011) CDIP/4/4 Rev./Study/Inf/5 <www.wipo.int> accessed 4 August 2017+accessed+4+August+2017>Google Scholar
‘Unilateral Conduct Workbook Chapter 1: The Objectives and Principles of Unilateral Conduct Laws’ (International Competition Network 2012) <www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org> accessed 14 February 2018+accessed+14+February+2018>Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, ‘Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition’ (United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission 2007) <www.ftc.gov> accessed 24 May 2019+accessed+24+May+2019>Google Scholar
World Trade Organization, ‘World Trade Report 2005: Exploring the Links between Trade, Standards and the WTO’ (World Trade Organization 2005) <www.wto.org> accessed 16 January 2018+accessed+16+January+2018>Google Scholar
‘WTO Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products – Non-Tariff Measures Work Programme’ (World Trade Organization 2000) WTO Doc. G/IT/19Google Scholar
‘WTO Report (2017) of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products’ (World Trade Organization 2017) WTO Doc. G/L/1200Google Scholar
Baron, J. and others, ‘Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and Their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights’ (2019) JRC 115004 <https://ec.europa.eu/jrc> accessed 16 May 2020+accessed+16+May+2020>Google Scholar
Bekkers, R. and Updegrove, A., ‘IPR Policies and Practices of a Representative Group of Standards Setting Organizations Worldwide’ (2013) <nap.edu> accessed 25 May 2020+accessed+25+May+2020>Google Scholar
Contreras, J. L., ‘A New Perspective on FRAND Royalties: Unwired Planet v Huawei’ (2017) <https://dc.law.utah.edu> accessed 16 February 2018+accessed+16+February+2018>Google Scholar
Evans, D. S., Zhang, V. Y. and Zhang, X., ‘Assessing Unfair Pricing under China´s Anti-Monopoly Law for Innovation-Intensive Industries’ (University of Chicago 2014) 687 <https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu> accessed 21 May 2019Google Scholar
Fliess, B. A. and Sauve, P., ‘Of Chips, Floppy Disks and Great Timing: Assessing the Information Technology Agreement’, Paper Prepared for the Institute Francais des Relations Internationales (IFRI) and the Tokyo Club Foundation for Global Studies (1997)Google Scholar
Larouche, P. and Zingales, N., ‘Injunctive Relief in FRAND Disputes in the EU? Intellectual Property and Competition Law at the Remedies Stage’ (Tilburg Law School 2017) No. 1 of 2017 <https://papers.ssrn.com> accessed 9 February 2018Google Scholar
Makiyama, R. S. and H.-L., ‘Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The Implications of the World Conference on International Telecommunication for International Trade’ (ECIPE Policy Briefs 2012) 12/2012 <www.econstor.eu> accessed 20 May 2019Google Scholar
McGowan, D., ‘The Apportionment Problem in Copyright Law’ (University of San Diego School of Law 2017) 17–307 <www.ssrn.com> accessed 2 May 2020Google Scholar
Siebrasse, N. V. and others, ‘Injunctive Relief’ <https://scholar.smu.edu> accessed 10 May 2019+accessed+10+May+2019>Google Scholar
‘A Brief History of Wi-Fi’ [2004] The Economist <www.economist.com> accessed 10 March 2018+accessed+10+March+2018>Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., ‘An Internet Whole and Free: Why Washington Was Right to Give up Control Essays’ (2017) 96 Foreign Affairs 14Google Scholar
Microsoft Corporation, ‘Supreme Court, Google v. Oracle: Brief of Microsoft Corporation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner’ (2019) <https://supremecourt.gov> accessed 22 June 2020.+accessed+22+June+2020.>Google Scholar
Aarnio, T., ‘Near Field Communication: Using NFC to Unlock Doors’ (Master’s Thesis, Aalto University 2013)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Antitrust: Commission Closes Formal Proceedings against Qualcomm’ (24 November 2009) <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release> accessed 29 November 2017+accessed+29+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act (Tentative Translation)’ <www.jftc.go.jp> accessed 21 January 2018+accessed+21+January+2018>Google Scholar
Hesse, Renata B., Response to Electrical and Electronics Engineers Request for Business Review, 2 February 2015 <www.justice.gov> accessed 20 June 2020+accessed+20+June+2020>Google Scholar
‘About ETSI’ (ETSI) <www.etsi.org/about> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘About JEDEC’ (JEDEC) <www.jedec.org/about-jedec> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘About Mobile Technology and IMT-2000’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu.int> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
Alvestrand, H., ‘A Mission Statement for the IETF’ (29 April 2004) <https://tools.ietf.org> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
Band, J., ‘Interfaces on Trial 3.0’ (2019) <www.policybandwidth.com/interfaces-2–0> accessed 4 March 2020F+accessed+4+March+2020F>Google Scholar
Bradner, S., ‘IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures’ <https://tools.ietf.org> accessed 6 December 2017+accessed+6+December+2017>Google Scholar
‘Developing ISO Standards’ (International Organization for Standardization) <www.iso.org> accessed 22 July 2016+accessed+22+July+2016>Google Scholar
‘General Info’ (Blu-ray Disc) <www.blu-raydisc.com> accessed 10 March 2018+accessed+10+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘History of IEEE’ (IEEE) <www.ieee.org> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘ICN Factsheet and Key Messages’ (International Competition Network, April 2009) <www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org> accessed 9 February 2018+accessed+9+February+2018>Google Scholar
‘IEEE at a Glance’ (IEEE) <www.ieee.org> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘IEEE Standards Association Study Group Guidelines’ <http://standards.ieee.org> accessed 6 December 2017+accessed+6+December+2017>Google Scholar
‘International Organization for Standardization Website’ <www.iso.org/standards.html> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ‘Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN, 22 July 2017) <www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en> accessed 25 February 2018+accessed+25+February+2018>Google Scholar
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) <www.icann.org/> accessed 24 February 2018+accessed+24+February+2018>Google Scholar
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ‘Beginner’s Guide to Participating in ICANN’ (ICANN) <www.icann.org> accessed 24 February 2018+accessed+24+February+2018>Google Scholar
‘ISO Membership Manual’ (International Organization for Standardization 2015) <www.iso.org> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘ISO/IEC Directives Part 1: Procedures for the Technical Work’ (2016) <www.iec.ch> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004 Standardization and Related Activities – General Vocabulary’ <www.iso.org/standard/39976.html> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘ISO/IEC Guide 59: 1994 Code of Good Practice for Standardization’ <www.iso.org/standard/23390.html> accessed 20 May 2019+accessed+20+May+2019>Google Scholar
‘ITU-T Study Groups (Study Period 2017–2020)’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu.int> accessed 12 March 2018+accessed+12+March+2018>Google Scholar
Kerr, S., ‘IETF Support for IPv6 Deployment’ (IETF Journal, 7 October 2007) <www.ietfjournal.org/ietf-support-for-ipv6-deployment/> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Membership Categories’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘OECD’ (OECD) <www.oecd.org/> accessed 14 March 2018+accessed+14+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Our History’ (Bluetooth) <www.bluetooth.com/about-us/our-history> accessed 9 March 2018+accessed+9+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Popular Standards’ (International Organization for Standardization) <www.iso.org/popular-standards.html> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘Specifications’ (Bluetooth) <www.bluetooth.com/specifications> accessed 25 January 2018+accessed+25+January+2018>Google Scholar
‘Submitting a Project Request’ (IEEE Standards Association – Developing Standards) <https://standards.ieee.org/develop/par.html> accessed 21 July 2016+accessed+21+July+2016>Google Scholar
‘The Framework of ITU-T’ (International Telecommunication Union) <www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/Pages/framework.aspx> accessed 8 March 2018+accessed+8+March+2018>Google Scholar
‘The Tao of the IETF: A Novice’s Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force’ <www.ietf.org/tao.html> accessed 30 November 2017+accessed+30+November+2017>Google Scholar
‘Unilateral Conduct’ <www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org> accessed 9 February 2018+accessed+9+February+2018>Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Simon Brinsmead
  • Book: Essential Interoperability Standards
  • Online publication: 26 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108913706.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Simon Brinsmead
  • Book: Essential Interoperability Standards
  • Online publication: 26 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108913706.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Simon Brinsmead
  • Book: Essential Interoperability Standards
  • Online publication: 26 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108913706.012
Available formats
×