Law Commons^™

Exclusive Dealing, The Theory Of The Firm, And Raising Rivals' Costs: Toward A New Synthesis, Alan J. Meese

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

Exclusive Dealing, The Theory Of The Firm, And Raising Rivals' Costs: Toward A New Synthesis, Alan J. Meese

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Empire Strikes Back: Nfl Cuts Clarett, Sacks Scheindlin, Adam Epstein

Adam Epstein

The article explores and the litigation history involving former Ohio State University running back Maurice Clarett and his challenge the the NFL draft-eligibility rule. Though Clarett was successful at the U.S. District Court level, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled differently, thereby preventing Clarett from being eligible for the 2004 NFL draft. Though he was drafted the next year (2005), an exploration of the differences between the trial court (Hon. Schendlin) and the appellate court (J. Sotomayor) opinions is quite interesting and relevant in the context of both antitrust and labor law, particularly the mandatory subjects of a collective …

The Patent-Antitrust Balance: Proposals For Change, N.R. Powers

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Antitrust Laws - Exclusive Dealing - Standards Of Illegality Under Section 3 Of The Clayton Act, Judd L. Bacon S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In a recent treatment of exclusive dealing arrangements, Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., the Supreme Court enunciates with some care the standards to be applied in judging the legality of requirements contracts under section 3 of the Clayton Act. This comment analyzes the merits and the impact of this needed clarification of a controversial area of antitrust law.

Exclusive marketing arrangements manifest themselves in various forms, and it is not uncommon to find more than one variety in a given contract. This inquiry, however, will be restricted largely to full requirements contracts, obligating a buyer to purchase …

Regulation Of Business-Antitrust Law As Affected By Standard Oil Company Of California V. United States, William R. Worth S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In Standard Oil Company of California v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has given what appears to be a final and definitive answer to this question, although differing from what had formerly been thought to be the "final and definite answer." This comment will be centered on that case and its implications.

Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

No abstract provided.