Wallace's memorandum avers:

The "licensed at no charge to all third parties" provision obviously triggers the per se doctrine's threshold of "likely to have predominantly anticompetitve effects." Northwest Stationers, supra.

So he's apparently claiming that Northwest Wholesale Stationers v Pacific Stationery & Printing, 472 U.S. 284 (1985), supports the proposition that the GPL's term 2(b) is anticompetitive.

“Northwest” was a purchasing cooperative, wholesaling office supplies to both member and non-members, but effectively charging members lower prices. “Pacific” had been a member until Northwest kicked them out without notice, explanation, or hearing.

Pacific sued Northwest, claiming that its expulsion was a group boycott, a per se violation of 1 Sherman Act. The district court decided rule-of-reason governed and granted summary judgment to Northwest.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. “Because Northwest had not provided any procedural safeguards, [...] the expulsion of Pacific was not shielded by Robinson-Patman immunity and therefore constituted a per se group boycott.”

Mr. Justice Brennan wrote:

[T]he District Court's rejection of per se analysis in this case was correct. A plaintiff seeking application of the per se rule must present a threshold case that the challenged activity falls into a category likely to have predominantly anticompetitive effects. The mere allegation of a concerted refusal to deal does not suffice because not all concerted refusals to deal are predominantly anticompetitive. When the plaintiff challenges expulsion from a joint buying cooperative, some showing must be made that the cooperative possesses market power or unique access to a business element necessary for effective competition.

It isn't obvious to me that this supports the proposition that GPL term 2(b) is anticompetive.