Antitrust: No-Bid .com Deal Supported Antitrust Claims Against VeriSign, While .net Contract Did Not
Professor Mark A. Lemley is referenced and quoted in an Electronic Commerce & Law Report article about an antitrust case that involves .com and .net domain registration agreements:
In determining that claims arising under Section 2 of the Sherman Act could proceed, the court pointed to an article written by Michael Froomkin, professor at the University of Miami School of Law, and Mark A. Lemley, professor at Stanford Law School. ICANN and Antitrust, 1 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1 (2003).
Section 2 of the Sherman Act provides a cause of action against parties that engage in “predatory” conduct, but excludes coercion of government organizations.
In interviews with BNA, Froomkin and Lemley pointed out that because this case is still in a preliminary stage, it is not yet clear what its impact on ICANN's interactions with domain registrars might be.
“I think it is an important decision on the issues of both vertical conspiracy to rig bids and on the question of antitrust immunity afforded a quasi-non-governmental organization[,]” Lemley said.
“But it is important to remember that the case arose on a motion to dismiss; on remand, CFIT will have to define a relevant market and prove its claims.”