Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
How Do (And Should) Competition Authorities Treat A Dominant Firm's Deception?, Maurice Stucke
How Do (And Should) Competition Authorities Treat A Dominant Firm's Deception?, Maurice Stucke
Scholarly Works
This Article discusses deception and its potential anticompetitive effects. Since deception lacks any redeeming ethical, moral, or economic justifications, and trust in the marketplace is paramount, multiple laws seek to deter and punish deception. Although the federal antitrust laws seek to deter acts of unfair competition, which historically included a competitor’s deception, some federal courts, recently have erected hurdles for antitrust plaintiffs injured by a monopolist’s deception. Such hurdles are contrary to the Sherman Act's legislative aim, the common law antecedents of the Sherman Act, and other congressional policies. Moreover, the courts’ legal standards for evaluating a monopolist’s deception involving …
Hearings, Mark Spottswood
Hearings, Mark Spottswood
Faculty Working Papers
This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …
Countermeasure Mechanisms In A P300-Based Concealed Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld
Countermeasure Mechanisms In A P300-Based Concealed Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld
Scholarly Works
The detection of deception has been the focus of much research in the past 20 years. Though much controversy has surrounded one deception detection protocol, the “Control Question Test” (NRC 2003, Ben-Shakhar 2002), an alternative test, the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), developed by Lykken (1959, 1960), is based on scientific principles and has been well-received in the scientific community. The GKT presents subjects with various stimuli, one of which is a guilty knowledge item (termed the probe, such as the gun used to commit a crime). The other stimuli in the test consist of control items that are of the …
A Mock Terrorism Application Of The P300-Based Concealed Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld
A Mock Terrorism Application Of The P300-Based Concealed Information Test, John B. Meixner Jr., J. Peter Rosenfeld
Scholarly Works
Previous studies examining the P300-based concealed information test typically tested for mock crime or autobiographical details, but no studies have used this test in a counterterrorism scenario. Subjects in the present study covertly planned a mock terrorist attack on a major city. They were then given three separate blocks of concealed information testing, examining for knowledge of the location, method, and date of the planned terrorist attack, using the Complex Trial Protocol (Rosenfeld et al., 2008). With prior knowledge of the probe items, we detected 12/12 guilty subjects as having knowledge of the planned terrorist attack with no false positives …
When A Monopolist Deceives, Maurice Stucke
When A Monopolist Deceives, Maurice Stucke
Scholarly Works
This essay uses one context - a monopolist’s deceptive advertising or product disparagement - to illustrate how competition authorities and courts should evaluate a monopolist’s deception under the federal antitrust laws. Competition authorities should target a monopolist’s anticompetitive deception, which courts should treat as a prima facie violation of the Sherman Act without requiring a full-blown rule of reason analysis or an arbitrary, multi-factor standard.
Navigating The Murky Waters Of Untruth In Negotiation: Lessons For Ethical Lawyers, Deborah A. Schmedemann
Navigating The Murky Waters Of Untruth In Negotiation: Lessons For Ethical Lawyers, Deborah A. Schmedemann
Faculty Scholarship
This article answers the following questions: What does the law-both general principles applicable to truthfulness in negotiation and professional responsibility rules- say about this dilemma? What do we know about the practice of truthfulness in lawyer negotiations? What have social scientists learned about deception in negotiations over the last few decades? Finally, what lessons can be drawn for lawyers seeking to behave ethically, as well as for those interested in assisting lawyers navigate the “murky waters of untruth?