Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

The Procompetitive Interest In Intellectual Property Law, Thomas F. Cotter Nov 2006

The Procompetitive Interest In Intellectual Property Law, Thomas F. Cotter

William & Mary Law Review

When government recognizes intellectual property (IP) rights, it is often viewed as sanctioning the existence of private "monopolies," in contrast to the general antimonopoly thrust of the antitrust laws. And yet, on occasion IP law itself condemns conduct on the part of IP owners-or excuses otherwise infringing activity on the part of IP defendants-expressly for the purpose of promoting competition. It does so even though antitrust law -if one were to apply it at all under analogous circumstances-would not find anticompetitive harm without conducting a more thorough analysis of whether the antitrust defendant possesses power over a well-defined market. Salient …


Sherman's March (In)To The Sea, Andrew S. Oldham Aug 2006

Sherman's March (In)To The Sea, Andrew S. Oldham

ExpressO

This Article argues that the Sherman Act is unconstitutional. At the very least, scholars and jurists must not take for granted Congress's ability to statutorily deputize the federal courts with common-lawmaking powers. The federal antitrust statute—which has been described as the Magna Carta of free enterprise—raises serious constitutional questions that have heretofore gone unexplored and unanswered. Specifically, it is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile the Sherman Act with the separation of powers, the nondelegation doctrine, and the Supremacy Clause.


Holmes And The Bald Man: Why Rule Of Reason Should Be The Standard In Sherman Act Section 2 Cases, William J. Michael Jun 2006

Holmes And The Bald Man: Why Rule Of Reason Should Be The Standard In Sherman Act Section 2 Cases, William J. Michael

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "It has been argued that the antitrust laws’ legislative history supports the notion that the laws were meant to prohibit anticompetitive price cuts – regardless of whether they are below cost. Thus, predatory pricing claims used to turn simply on whether the allegedly predatory price was intended to harm rivals. In fact, liability for predatory price discrimination was found without requiring probable or actual monopolization. Yet some cases brought early under Section 2 suggest that below cost pricing was indicative of, if not proof of, the type of conduct Section 2 prohibits. The results under this old scheme were …


Is The Ncaa Prohibition Of Native American Mascots From Championship Play A Violation Of The Sherman Antitrust Act, Ryan Fulda Jan 2006

Is The Ncaa Prohibition Of Native American Mascots From Championship Play A Violation Of The Sherman Antitrust Act, Ryan Fulda

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.


Antitrust And The Supremacy Clause , Richard Squire Jan 2006

Antitrust And The Supremacy Clause , Richard Squire

Faculty Scholarship

In the course of damning the market giant Standard Oil, the Supreme Court declared that the purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act is to prevent "monopoly and the acts which produce the same result as monopoly." The Constitution's Supremacy Clause, in turn, requires preemption-that is, non-enforcement--of state laws that conflict with a federal statute. Put together, these propositions suggest that state laws which create monopolies should be prime candidates for preemption via the Sherman Act. But despite the syllogistic logic bearing down on them, monopoly-creating state laws have easily weathered most federal antitrust challenges, even when the state does not …


Horizontal Agreements: Concept And Proof, George A. Hay Jan 2006

Horizontal Agreements: Concept And Proof, George A. Hay

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is well established that, absent some very special circumstances, agreements on price or certain other terms of trade by otherwise competing entities (i.e., "horizontal agreements") are unlawful per se under the Sherman Act. In practical effect, once the fact of the horizontal agreement has been established, an adverse impact on competition is presumed, and therefore that the plaintiff is spared the burden of proving such an impact. The principal task for plaintiffs in such cases, therefore, is establishing the existence of an agreement.

In the ideal world (from plaintiffs' perspective), there would be "hard" evidence of a "formal" agreement. …


Tweaking Antitrust's Business Model , Thom Lambert Jan 2006

Tweaking Antitrust's Business Model , Thom Lambert

Faculty Publications

This essay evaluates Hovenkamp's suggestions, concluding that most are sound, that a few might be slightly revised to enhance their effectiveness or administrability, and that a couple are downright unwise. In particular, the essay criticizes Hovenkamp's call for abandonment of the indirect purchaser rule and his proposed test for identifying exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.


Weyerhaeuser And The Search For Antitrust's Holy Grail, Thom Lambert Jan 2006

Weyerhaeuser And The Search For Antitrust's Holy Grail, Thom Lambert

Faculty Publications

A general definition of exclusionary conduct has become a sort of Holy Grail for antitrust scholars. At present, four proposed definitions appear most promising: (1) conduct that could exclude an equally efficient rival; (2) conduct that raises rivals' costs unjustifiably; (3) conduct that, on balance, impairs consumer welfare by creating market power without providing countervailing consumer benefits; and (4) conduct that makes no economic sense but for its exclusionary effect on rivals.


At The Crossroads: Making Competition Law Effective In Pakistan Symposium On Competition Law And Policy In Developing Countries , Joseph Wilson Jan 2006

At The Crossroads: Making Competition Law Effective In Pakistan Symposium On Competition Law And Policy In Developing Countries , Joseph Wilson

Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business

Just as the first merger wave of the late 1880's in the United States resulted in the birth of Sherman Act, the recent global merger wave of the early 2000's, coupled with the growing liberalization of trade, prompted a large number of developing and transitional economies to adopt competition laws. Pakistan is one of the few developing countries with a competition law in place for more than three decades: the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance of 1970 ("MRTPO" or the "Ordinance"). While the Ordinance contained fairly strong provisions, the agency entrusted to implement it, the Monopolies Control Authority ("MCA"), …