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

Law Commons

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

Series

Antitrust

Cleveland State University

Law Faculty Briefs

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Brief Of Antitrust Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Supporting Affirmance, Chris Sagers, K. Craig Wildfang, Ryan W. Marth, David Martinez Jan 2015

Brief Of Antitrust Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Supporting Affirmance, Chris Sagers, K. Craig Wildfang, Ryan W. Marth, David Martinez

Law Faculty Briefs

Amici urge affirmance for three principal reasons. First, we elaborate a point to dispel Appellant's suggestion that antitrust somehow does not belong here. Second, we show that ordinary rule of reason treatment was appropriate. Relying rather daringly on a case that it overwhelmingly lost, Appellant asks this Court to find within NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), a rule that its "amateurism" or "eligibility" restraints are "valid...as a matter of law." NCAA Br. at 14, 22. Board of Regents did not say that, and even Appellant's own amici admit ...


Brief Of Amicus Curiae American Antitrust Institute In Support Of Appellants And Reversal Of The District Court's Decision, Federal Trade Commission And State Of Minnesota V. Lundbeck, Inc. Nos. 10-3548 And 10-3549, United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth District (2011), Christopher L. Sagers, W. Joseph Bruckner, Richard M. Brunell Jan 2011

Brief Of Amicus Curiae American Antitrust Institute In Support Of Appellants And Reversal Of The District Court's Decision, Federal Trade Commission And State Of Minnesota V. Lundbeck, Inc. Nos. 10-3548 And 10-3549, United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth District (2011), Christopher L. Sagers, W. Joseph Bruckner, Richard M. Brunell

Law Faculty Briefs

The basis for the District Court’s ruling was its view that cross-price elasticity of demand was “very low” between the two drugs acquired by Lundbeck, and therefore that they could not be in the same relevant market.2 AAI urges reversal on three grounds. First, assuming arguendo that crossprice elasticity was low – even if it were zero – the court’s approach fundamentally misapprehended the law. A lack of price competition between two functionally interchangeable products does not preclude a determination that they are in the same relevant market. Second, regardless of “low” cross-price elasticity, the acquisition removed an actual ...