一、中文文獻
(一)期刊專文
王仁君(2012),〈試析專利法有關專利侵權損害賠償之修正-從美國法院適用「合理權利金」之實務看我國未來適用「相當權利金」之可能挑戰〉,《全國律師》,第16卷第6期,頁40-50。
王立達(2002),〈競爭法對智慧財產權市場力量之管制-以有線電視頻道授權案件為例〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第84期,頁143-166。
王立達(2004),〈從TRIPS協定與公眾健康爭議論專利強制授權之功能與侷限〉,《科技法律評論》,第1卷第1期,頁215-246。向明恩(2011),〈同時履行抗辯權與誠實信用原則之交互關係-最高法院99年臺上字第2287號民事判決〉,《月旦裁判時報》,第7期,頁29-36。
何孝元(1965),〈誠實信用原則與衡平法之性質及功能〉,《法學叢刊》,10卷1期總號37,頁7-16。何曜任(2011),〈美國法專利權濫用理論對我國法之啟示〉,《智慧財產評論》,第9卷第2期,頁1-41。李祟僖(2012),〈專利技術價值在侵權訴訟中之認定-兼論美國法上的專利政策思維〉,《專利師季刊》,第9期,頁1-16。
李素華(2003),〈技術標準制定之競爭法規範與調和〉,《東吳法律學報》,15卷1期,頁117-178。李素華(2008),〈專利權行使與公平交易法-以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心〉,《公平交易季刊》,第16卷第2期,頁85-121。李素華(2010),〈專利權侵害之損害賠償計算-以合理權利金法為例〉,《全國律師》,第14卷第6期,頁16-25。
李素華(2011),〈專利權讓與之給付義務與權利瑕疵擔保-臺灣高等法院九十五年度上自第一O三二號民事判決〉,《月旦裁判時報》,第11期,頁47-57。
李素華(2014),〈智慧財產法院運作之觀察與檢討-以專利侵權訴訟為中心〉,《全國律師》,第18卷第10期,頁18-42。
李素華(2016),〈從專利授權契約之本質論專利法相關規範之解釋與適用〉,《政大法學評論》,第144期,頁1-80。李素華(2017),〈除去或防止侵害請求權與競爭法規範--從德國Spundfass及橘皮書案談技術標準專利權之行使〉,《公平交易季刊》,25卷1期,頁37-79。李素華、張哲倫(2014),〈專利之制度目的及權利本質-法院在其中之關鍵角色及功能〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第232期,頁191-222。
李素華、張哲倫(2014),〈專利法之經濟結構-經濟分析理論於臺灣專利制度運作之啟發〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第234期,頁229-262。
沈宗倫(2012),〈以合理權利金為中心的新專利損害賠償法制-評智慧財產法院98年度民專上易字第25號判決及其初審法院判決〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第211期,頁178-199。
沈宗倫(2016),〈專利權排除侵害之相對性與衡平法理-以智慧財產法院100年度民專上字第57號判決為例〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第253期,頁181-209。
周伯翰(2012),〈技術標準制定與競爭法規範及專利權濫用之檢討〉,《科技法律評析》,5期,頁39-91。林欣蓉(2014),〈精益求精,更上層樓-我國專利訴訟審理之實證與檢討〉,《全國律師》,第18卷第10期,頁5-17。
林昭志、陳冠甫(2013),〈論誠實信用原則之具體化適用-以權利失效、棄權與禁止反言為中心〉,《財經法暨經濟法》,第35期,頁71-107。林誠二(2001),〈再論誠實信用原則與權利濫用禁止原則之機能-最高法院八十八年度台上字第二八一九號判決評釋〉,《臺灣本土法學雜誌》,第22期,頁36-61。
范建得、莊春發、錢逸霖(2007),〈管制與競爭:論專利權之濫用〉,《公平交易季刊》,第15卷第2期,頁1-39。范曉玲(2006),〈專利權人權利行使與公平競爭之平衡-以台美專利訴訟的幾個近期重要案例為核心〉,《月旦法學》,第139期,頁215-231。
徐維佑(2015),〈標準與必要專利推動支援政策措施研析〉,《科技法律透析》,27卷6期,頁52-68。
張素芳(2011),〈單方拒絕專利授權之研究-以美國反托拉斯法為中心〉,《公平交易季刊》,19卷1期,頁65-117。許忠信(2008),〈智慧財產權之濫用與限制競爭防止法之適用-由美國法與日本法看我國公平交易法第四十五條〉,《全國律師》,12卷10期,頁5-26。
許忠信(2008),智慧財產權侵害警告函之比較法觀察-以美國法與德國法之比較為中心〉,《公平交易季刊》,第16卷第3期,頁53-106。陳自強(2010),〈聯合國商事契約通則在契約法中之地位〉,《臺大法學論叢》,第39卷第4期,頁299-348。陳皓芸(2017),〈標準必要專利權之行使、權利濫用與獨占地位濫用〉,《公平交易季刊》,25卷1期,頁81-130。陳聰富(2011),〈誠信原則之適用範圍與效果-最高法院八十八年台上字第四九七號民事判決〉,《月旦裁判時報》,第7期,頁130-135。
傅松青(2013),〈從美國司法判決看專利聯盟的今日與未來〉,《智慧財產評論》,11卷1期,頁87-134。黃惠敏(2016),〈標準必要專利與競爭法之管制--以違反F/RAND承諾為中心〉,《中原財經法學》,36期,頁171-243。黃銘傑(2012),〈新專利法強制授權規範之問題點與盲點-兼論未來實務之方向及作法〉,《全國律師》,頁4-15。
楊仁壽(1990),〈論權利濫用禁止原則之適用〉,《法令月刊》,第41卷第2期,頁5-8。楊宏暉(2009),〈誠信原則與契約締結相關說明義務的合理性〉,《法學叢刊》,第215期,頁111-163。楊宏暉(2015),〈標準關鍵專利之濫用與限制競爭〉,《公平交易季刊》,23卷4期,頁35-86。楊宏暉(2015),〈論F/RAND授權聲明之意義與性質〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,第50期,頁67-86。
楊宏暉(2016),〈德國競爭法上強制授權抗辯之發展與省思〉,《公平交易季刊》,第24卷第3期,頁81-134。楊宏暉(2017),〈基於競爭考量之強制授權-兼談競爭法與專利法之競合〉,《公平交易季刊》,25卷1期,頁1-36。楊智傑(2012),〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉,《智慧財產權》,第160期,頁51-100。葉雲卿(2013),〈自願性承諾對於標準專利人權利限制法理之形成-F/RAND條款承諾之法效力〉,《萬國法律》,192期,頁81-92。
葉雲卿(2014),〈標準專利權人之合理無歧視條款(FRAND)之義務與契約自由原則-從智慧財產法院101年度民專上更(二)字第3號民事判決出發〉,《法令月刊》,第65卷第4期,頁15-32。鈴木將文(著),陳皓芸(譯)(2015),〈日本の特許権侵害訴訟の最近の動向〉,《成大法學》,29期,頁113-225。劉孔中(2007),〈以關鍵設施理論限制專利強制授權之範圍〉,《公平交易季刊》,15卷1期,頁25-58。劉孔中(2011),〈技術標準、關鍵內容與強制授權-國際標準下的本土檢討〉, 《公平交易季刊》,第19卷第3期,頁1-32。劉憶成(2016),〈標準必要專利法制發展及對應策略〉,《科技法律透析》,28卷8期,頁51-72。
蔡岳勳(2009),〈聯合技術標準制定、專利權揭露與競爭法-對2008年Rambus, Inc. v. FTC案之初步評悉〉,《科技法學評論》,6卷1期,頁241-275。魯明德(2015),〈從SEP看專利授權策略的改變〉,《新新季刊》,43卷2期,頁94-96。
蕭椀如(2014),〈競爭法規範智慧財產權掠奪性訴訟之研究〉,《公平交易法季刊》,22卷3期,頁67-113。錢芸(2012),〈專利侵害損害賠償之新變革-專利法修正後之解釋與適用〉,《全國律師》,頁51-58。
顏廷棟(2009),〈日本獨占禁止法對於技術授權行為之規範-兼論對我國公平法規範之啟示〉,《公平交易季刊》,頁99-142。顏雅倫(2016),〈公平會智慧財產權授權管制實務之回顧與評析〉,《公平交易季刊》,第24卷第1期,頁1-45。(二)一般書籍
王澤鑑(1999),《民法原理(一)-基本理論 債之發生》。臺北:自版。
王澤鑑(2001),《民法總則》。臺北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2004),《民法學說與判例研究第一冊》。臺北:自刊。王澤鑑(2006),《民法學說與判例研究第八冊》。臺北:自刊。王澤鑑(2009),《民法概要》。臺北:三民。
何元孝(1977),《民法債編總論》。臺北:三民。
何連國(1982),《專利法規及實務》。臺北:自刊。
林洲富(2011),《專利法案例式》。臺北:五南。
林誠二(2010),《債法總論新解-體系化解說(下)》。臺北:瑞興。
邱聰智(2003),《新訂民法債篇通則(下)》。臺北:自版。
施啟揚(2005),《民法總則》。臺北:三民。
孫森焱(2000),《民法債篇總論下冊》。臺北:三民。
陳家駿、羅怡德(1999),《公平交易法與智慧財產權-以專利追索為中心》。臺北:五南。陳智超(2008),《專利法-理論與實務》。臺北:五南。
陳龍昇(2013),《專利法》。臺北:元照。黃銘傑(2006),《競爭法與智慧財產法之交會-相生與相剋之間》。臺北:元照。
楊楨(1999),《英美契約法論》。臺北:凱倫。楊崇森(2003),《專利法理論與應用》。臺北:三民。詹森林(1998),《民事法理與判決研究》。臺北:元照。劉孔中(2003),《公平交易法》。臺北:元照。
劉孔中(2007),《智慧財產權法制的關鍵革新》。臺北:元照。
劉孔中(2015),《解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和》。臺北:新學林。劉春堂(2011),《民法債篇通則(一)-契約法總論》。臺北:三民。
劉國讚(2009),《專利實務論》。臺北,元照。
蔡明誠(2000),《發明專利法研究》。臺北:自版。鄭玉波(1984),《民法總則論文選輯(下)》。臺北:五南。
謝銘洋(2004),《智慧財產權之基礎理論》。臺北:翰蘆。謝銘洋(2004),《智慧財產權之制度與實務》。臺北:翰蘆。(三)學位論文
王葳怡(2014),《產業標準專利授權研究─以F/RAND原則為中心》,國立臺北科技大學智慧財產權研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
李兆國(2002),標準制定組織及標準專利權之爭議》,國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文(未出版),新竹。
陳俐妤(2013),《標準必要專利權利金爭議之探討》,國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
陳昶旭(2014),《F/RAND原則之研究》,輔仁大學財經法律學系碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
溫俊富(1997),《專利制度與競爭制度調和之研究》,國立政治大學法律研究所博士論文(未出版),臺北。(四)研討會文章
李素華(2016年3月),〈標準及其對競爭法之啟示(Standards and Its Implication to Competition Law)〉,發表於:《標準、標準必要專利與競爭法制國際研討會稱》。國立台灣大學法律學院(主辦),臺北。
李素華(2016年5月),〈智慧財產侵害排除及預防請求權之法律地位與競爭法之規範〉,發表於:《台灣公平交易法學會105年度第一次學術研討會》。台灣公平交易法學會(主辦):臺北。
陳皓芸(2016年5月),〈標準必要專利之權利行使、權利濫用與獨占地位濫用〉,發表於:《台灣公平交易法學會105年度第一次學術研討會》。台灣公平交易法學會(主辦):臺北。楊宏暉(2016年5月),〈基於競爭考量之強制授權-兼談競爭法與專利法之競合〉,發表於:《台灣公平交易法學會105年度第一次學術研討會》。台灣公平交易法學會(主辦):臺北。(五)翻譯書籍
Michael Heller (著),許瑞宋(譯)(2010)。《僵局經濟》。新北市:繁星。
二、日文文獻
田村善之(2012),〈標準化と特許権-RAND 条項による対策の法的課題〉,《知財研フォーラム》,90 号,頁22以下。
竹田稔(2013),〈差止請求権の制限〉,《ジュリスト》,1458 号,頁41-47。
鈴木將文(2015),〈標準必須特許の権利行使を巡る法的問題〉, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 15-J-061,頁1-40,available at http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/15j061.pdf (last visited on June 15, 2017).
三、英文文獻
Barnett, Jonathan M., Has the Academy Led Patent Law Astray?, Univ. S. Cal. Legal Studies Research Papers Series No. 17-4 (2017), also available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2897728.
Barnett, Jonathan M., The Anti-Commons Revisited, 29 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 128-203 (2015), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2633695 (last visited on June 15, 2017).
Bell, Robert, Litigation as an Abuse: European Commission and US Courts Draw a Line under ‘Patent Wars’ While Adopting a Common Approach on Standard Essential Patents, 15(3) BUS. L. INT''L 255-259 (2014).
Biddle, Brad & Curci, Frank X. & Haslach, Timothy F. & Marchant, Gary E. & Askland, Andrew & Gaudet, Lyn, The Expanding Role and Importance of Standards in the Information and Communications Technology Industry, 52 Jurimetrics J. 177-208 (2012).
Brooks, Roger G. & Geradin, Damien, Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary F/RAND Commitment, 9 INT’L J. IT STANDARDS & STANDARDIZATION RES. 1-36 (2011).
Brooks, Roger G. & Geradin, Damien, Taking Contracts Seriously: The Meaning of the Voluntary Commitment to License Essential Patents on ''Fair and Reasonable'' Terms, 1-20, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1569498 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1569498 (2010).
Brooks, Roger G., Patent “Hold-Up,” Standards-Setting Organizations and the FTC''s Campaign against Innovators, 39 AIPLA Q. J. 435-476 (2011).
Calabreisi, Guido & Melamed, A. Douglas A.D., Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability Rule: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089-1128(1972).
Cheng, Thomas K., Antitrust Treatment of the No Challenge Clause, 5 N.Y.U. J. of Intell. Prop. & Ent. Law 437-512 (2016).
Chia, Thomas H., Fighting the Smartphone Patent War with RAND-Encumbered Patents, 27 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 209-240 (2012).
Chien, Colleen & Lemley, Mark, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1-45 (2012).
Chien, Colleen, Holding Up and Holding Out, 21 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 1-41 (2014).
Contreras, Jorge L., A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and Other Patent Pledges, Utah L. Rev. 479-558 (2015).
Cotropia, Christopher Anthony, Compulsory Licensing Under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States'' Decision in eBay v. MercExchange, PATENT LAW: A HANDBOOK OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH, Toshiko Takenaka & Rainer Moufang, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing Co., 1-23, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1086142(2008).
Cotter, Thomas F., Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties, 22 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 311-363 (2014).
Cotter, Thomas F., Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses, 34 Iowa J. Corp. L. 1151-1207(2009).
DeLacey, Brian J.&Herman, Kerry&Kiron, David&Lerner, Josh, Strategic Behavior in Standard-Setting Organizations, Harvard NOM Working Paper No. 903214, 1-51, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=903214 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.903214(2006).
Devlin, Alan, Analyzing Monopoly Power Ex Ante, 5 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 153-206 (2009).
Devlin, Alan, Standard-Setting and the Failure of Price Competition, 65 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 217-268 (2009).
Dimwoodie, Graeme B. & Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper, International Intellectual Property Law and the Public Domain of Science, 7 J. OF INT''L ECON. L. 431-448 (2004).
Elhauge, Einer, Do Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Lead to Systematically Excessive Royalties? , 4 J. COMP. L. & ECON. 535-570 (2008).
Epstein, Richard, Steady the Course: Property Rights in Genetic Material, The Chicago Working Paper Series, 1-61 (2003), available at http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=law_and_economics.
Farrell, Joseph & Hayes, John & Shapiro, Carl & Sullivan, Theresa, Standard Setting, Patents and Hold-up, 74 Antitrust L. J. 603-670 (2007).
Farrell, Joseph, Standardization and Intellectual Property, 30 JURIMETRICS J. 35-50 (1989).
Galetovic, Alexander & Haber, Stephan H. & Zaretzi, Lew, Is There an Anti-Commons Tragedy in the Smartphone Industry, Hoover Inst. Working Paper Series No. 17005, 1-23 (2017).
Galli, Niccolò, Standard Essential Patents Litigation and Abuse of a Dominant Position: The “FRAND” Defense in the EU Competition Law Context, 1-197, available at http://www.studiotorta.it/premio/pdf/tesi2016/2016-Niccolo-Galli-The-FRAND-Defense-in-the-EU.pdf.
Geradin, Damien & Layne-Farrar, Anne & Padilla, A. Jorge, The Complements Problem within Standard Setting: Assessing the Evidence on Royalty Stacking, 14 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 144-176 (2008).
Geradin, Damien & Rato, Miguel, Can Standard-Setting Lead to Exploitative Abuse? A Dissonant View on Patent Hold-Up, Royalty-Stacking and the Meaning of F/RAND, 3 EUR. COMPETITION J. 101-162 (2007).
Geradin, Damien, Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in a Standard-Setting Context: A View from Europe, 76 Antitrust L.J. 329-358 (2009).
Geradin, Damien, Reverse Hold-Ups: The (Often Ignored) Risks Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas,1-25, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1711744 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1711744(November 12, 2010).
Geradin, Damien, The Meaning of “Fair and Reasonable” in the Context of Third-Party Determination of F/RAND Terms, 21 GEO. MASON L. REV. 919-956 (2014).
Ginsburg, Douglas H.&Owings, Taylor M.&Wright, Joshua D., Enjoining Injunctions: The Case Against Antitrust Liability for Standard Essential Patent Holders Who Seek Injunctions, the Antitrust Source, pp. 1-7, October 2014; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 14-58, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2515949.D
Hall, Brown H. & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical study of patenting in the U. S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 32 no.1, 101-128, available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.130.6254&rep=rep1&type=pdf (2001).
Hardin, Garret, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Science, 1243-1248 (1968), available at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/162/3859/1243.full.pdf .
Heller, Michael & Eisenberg, Rebecca, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698-701(1998).
Heller, Michael, The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, 3 Harvard Law Review, 621-688 (1998).
Jiang, Tiancheng, EU Antitrust Review of Refusal to License IPR: Its Potential for China, Doctoral Thesis of Ghent University (2014-2015), available at https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5903334/file/5903344.pdf.
Katz, Michael L. & Shapiro, Carl, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, the American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3., 424-440 (1985).
Kesan, Jay P.&Hayes, Carol M., FRAND''s Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments, 89 Ind. L.J. 231-314 (2014).
Kuipers, Gertjan&Groenevelt, Douwe&Lamme, Oscar, A further perspective on Apple v Samsung: How to successfully enforce Standard Essential Patents in the Netherlands, 222-228 (2012), available at http://www.debrauw.com/wp-content/uploads/NEWS%20-%20PUBLICATIONS/artikel1_Kuipers-Groeneveld-Lamme.pdf.
Langus, Gregor& Lipatov, Vilen & Neven, Damien, Standard-Essential Patents: Who Is Really Holding Up (and When), 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 253-284 (2013).
Lee, Jyh-An, Implementing the FRAND Standard in China, 19 V and. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 37-86 (2016).
Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1135-1166 (2013).
Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991-2050 (2007).
Lemley, Mark A., Antitrust and the Internet Standardization Problem, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 1041-1094(1996).
Lemley, Mark A., Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1889-1980 (2002)
Lemley, Mark A., Ten Things to Do About Patent Holdup of Standards (And One Not To), 48 B.C. L. REV. 149-168 (2007)
Lichtman, Douglas, Understanding the RAND Commitment, 47 HOUS. L. REV. 1023-1050 (2010).
Lim, Daryl, Standard Essential Patents, Trolls, and the Smartphone Wars: Triangulating the End Game, 119 Penn St. L. Rev. 1-91(2014).
Lin, Daniel, Research versus Development: Patent Pooling, Innovation and Standardization in the Software Industry, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 274-309 (2002).
Maldonado, Kassandra, Breaching RAND and Reaching for Reasonable: Microsoft v. Motorola and Standard-Essential Patent Litigation, 29 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 419-464 (2014).
Merges, Robert P. & Kuhn, Jeffrey M., An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards, 97 CALIF. L. REV. 1-50(2009).
Meyer, David L. & Thayamballi, Fabien, Does First Amendment Principles Limit the Antitrust Agencies'' Ability To Prohibit Enforcement Of Standards-Essential Patents?, 23 NO. 1 COMPETITION: J. ANTI. & UNFAIR COMP. L. SEC. ST. B. CAL. 142-155 (2014).
Miller, Joseph Scott, Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 IND. L. REV. 351-395 (2007).
Noel, Michael D. & Schankerman, Mark A., Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5701 1-36 (2006), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=922111 .
Ohlhausen, Maureen K. & Wright, Joshua D., Reply Submission on the Public Interest of Federal Trade Commissioners, Inv. No. 337-TA-613 1-9, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/685811/150720itcreplyohlhausen-wright.pdf .
Purcell, Joseph M., Jr., The “Essential Facilities” Doctrine in the Sunlight: Stacking Patented Genetic Traits in Agriculture, 85(3) ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 1251-1274 (2011).
Ragavan, Srividhya & Murphy, Brendan & Raj Davé, FRAND v. Compulsory Licensing: the Lesser of the Two Evils, 14 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 83-120 (2015).
Shapiro, Carl, Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties, American Law and Economics Review, V12 N2, 280-318 (2010).
Shapiro, Carl, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting, 1 INNOVATION POL’Y AND THE ECON. 119-150 (2001).
Sidak, J. Gregory, Holdup, Royalty Stacking, and the Presumption of Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement: A Reply to Lemley and Shapiro, 92 MINN. L. REV. 714-748 (2008).
Sidak, J. Gregory, Memorandum on Standard-Essential Patents, 1-20 (2016), available at https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/standard-essential-patents-indian-ministry-of-commerce-and-industry.pdf.
Sidak, J. Gregory, The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties, Jnl of Competition Law & Economics 9(4) 931-1056 (2013)
Sidak, J. Greory, The Meaning of FRAND, Part II: Injunctions, Journal of Competition Law &Economics, 11(1) 201-269 (2015), available at http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/18/joclec.nhv005 (last visited on June 15, 2017).
Siebrasse, Norman & Cotter, Thomas F., The Value of the Standard, 101 Minnesota Law Review 1159-1246 (2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2636445 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2636445;.
Sipe, Matthew, Patent Privateers and Antitrust Fears, 22 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 191-224(2016).
Smith, Henry E., Property as Platform: Coordinating Standards for Technological Innovation, 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 1057-1090 (2013).
Sternberg, Daniel S., A Brief History of RAND, 20 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 211-246 (2014).
Stern-Dombal, Charlene A., Tripping Over TRIPS: Is Compulsory Licensing Under eBay at Odds with U.S. Statutory Requirements and TRIPS?, 41 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 249-278 (2007).
Swanson, Daniel & Baumol, William, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power, 73 Antitrust L.J. 1-58 (2005).
Teece, David J.&Sherry, Edward F., Standards Setting and Antitrust, 87 Minn. L. Rev. 1913-1994 (2003).
Tudor, Jarrod, Compulsory Licensing in the European Union, Geo. Mason J. Int’L Com. Law 222-258 (2012).
Vezzoso, Simoneeta, The Use of Standard Essential Patents: Competition Policy Issues, XIV April International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development, National Research University ‘Higher School of Economics’, Moscow (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2365276 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2365276.
Wagner, R. Polk, Information Wants to be Free: Intellectual Property and the Mythologies of Control, 1 Columbia Law Review 995-1034(2003).
Wright, Joshua D.& Ginsburg, Douglas H., Whither Symmetry? Antitrust Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights at the FTC and DOJ, 9 COMPETITION POL’Y INT’L 41-52 (2013), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2365577 .
Wright, Joshua D., SSOs, F/RAND, and Antitrust: Lessons from the Economics of Incomplete Contracts, 21 GEO. MASON L. REV. 791-809 (2014).
Wright, Joshua D., Why the Supreme Court Was Correct to Deny Certiorari in FTC v. Rambus, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 09-14, 1-16, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1349969 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1349969 (2009).
Yeh, Brian T., An Overview of the “Patent Trolls” Debate, Congressional Research Service, 1-21 (2013).
Telyas, David, THE INTERFACE BETWEEN COMPETITION LAW, PATENTS AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS (Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands, 2014).
Hovenkamp, Herbert & Lemley, Mark A. & Janis, Mark D., IP AND ANTITRUST-AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (ASPEN Publishers, New York, 2003).