Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae 65 Professors Of Law, Business, Economics, And Sports Management In Support Of Respondents, Chris Sagers, Michael A. Carrier, Lisa M. Geary
Brief Of Amici Curiae 65 Professors Of Law, Business, Economics, And Sports Management In Support Of Respondents, Chris Sagers, Michael A. Carrier, Lisa M. Geary
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
The Alston plaintiffs are college athletes who successfully challenged the NCAA's "amateurism" rules, convincing the lower courts that the rules should be modestly relaxed to limit their effect on competition for athletic talent. Nearly 60 professors of law, business, and economics from around the country joined the brief.
Brief Of Antitrust Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Supporting Affirmance, Chris Sagers, K. Craig Wildfang, Ryan W. Marth, David Martinez
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 and Court Documents
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 it. See Wilson …
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
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 and Court Documents
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 or …