Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Promoting Progress: A Qualitative Analysis Of Creative And Innovative Production, Jessica Silbey
Promoting Progress: A Qualitative Analysis Of Creative And Innovative Production, Jessica Silbey
Faculty Scholarship
This chapter is based on data collected as part of a larger qualitative empirical study based on face-to-face interviews with artists, scientists, engineers, their lawyers, agents and business partners. Broadly, the project involves the collecting and analysis of these interviews to understand how and why the interviewees create and innovate and to make sense of the intersection between intellectual property law and creative and innovative activity from the ground up. This chapter specifically investigates the concept of “progress” as discussed in the interviews. “Promoting progress” is the ostensible goal of the intellectual property protection in the United States, but what …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Antitrust Law Professors In O'Bannon V. Ncaa, Thomas C. Arthur, Amitai Aviram, Edward D. Cavanagh, Jorge L. Contreras, Daniel A. Crane, Susan Beth Farmer, Herbert Hovenkamp, Keith N. Hylton, Michael S. Jacobs, Alan J. Meese, Salil K. Mehra, William H. Page, Gary R. Roberts, D. Daniel Sokol, Alexander Volokh
Brief Of Amici Curiae Antitrust Law Professors In O'Bannon V. Ncaa, Thomas C. Arthur, Amitai Aviram, Edward D. Cavanagh, Jorge L. Contreras, Daniel A. Crane, Susan Beth Farmer, Herbert Hovenkamp, Keith N. Hylton, Michael S. Jacobs, Alan J. Meese, Salil K. Mehra, William H. Page, Gary R. Roberts, D. Daniel Sokol, Alexander Volokh
Faculty Scholarship
On November 21, 2014, 15 professors of antitrust law at leading U.S. universities submitted an amicus brief in the O'Bannon v. NCAA 9th Circuit appeal in support of the NCAA. They have an interest in the proper development of antitrust jurisprudence, and they agree that the court below misapplied the “less restrictive alternative” prong of the rule of reason inquiry for assessing the legality of restraints of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. They are concerned that the district court’s approach to the antitrust rule of reason, if affirmed, would grant undue authority to …