Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons^™

Analyzing The Scope Of Major League Baseball's Antitrust Exemption In Light Of San Jose V. Office Of The Commissioner Of Baseball, Justin B. Bryant

Notre Dame Law Review

San Jose's antitrust suit against Major League Baseball renews the challenge of defining the scope and applicability of the baseball antitrust exemption and the struggle to sort through the lower court precedent to arrive at a workable standard for the exemption. This Note will discuss the history of the exemption, the potential standards for applying the exemption, and analyze Judge Whyte's order dismissing San Jose's antitrust claims in City of San Jose v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball to determine the persuasiveness the court's opinion may have going forward as well as potential issues with the court's reasoning.

Innovation And Optimal Punishment, With Antitrust Applications, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lin

Faculty Scholarship

This article modifies the optimal punishment analysis by incorporating investment incentives with external benefits. In the models examined, the recommendation that the optimal penalty should internalize the marginal social harm is no longer valid. We focus on antitrust applications. In light of the benefits from innovation, the optimal policy will punish monopolizing firms more leniently than suggested in the standard static model. It may be optimal not to punish the monopolizing firm at all, or to reward the firm rather than punish it. We examine the precise balance between penalty and reward in the optimal punishment scheme.

Policing The Firm, D. Daniel Sokol

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.

Consent Of The Governed Or Consent Of The Government? The Problems With Consent Decrees In Government-Defendant Cases, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

Consent decrees raise serious Article III concerns. When litigants agree on their rights and jointly seek the same relief from a court, they are no longer adverse and a justiciable controversy no longer exists between them. In the absence of an actual controversy between opposing parties, it is both inappropriate and unnecessary for a court to issue a substantive order declaring or modifying the litigants' rights. Whether Article Ill's adverseness requirement is seen as jurisdictional or prudential, federal courts should decline to issue consent decrees and instead require litigants that wish to voluntarily resolve a case to execute a settlement …

Lessons From At&T'S Flop: How To Grow In The Technology Industry While Avoiding Section 7 Antitrust Obstacles, John Soma

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

No abstract provided.

Dodd-Frank's Conflict Minerals Rule: The Tin Ear Of Government-Business Regulation, Henry Lowenstein

Marketing and Hospitality, Resort and Tourism Management

This paper examines an unusual provision included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010), Section 1502 known as the Conflict Minerals Rule. This provision, having nothing to do with the subject matter of the act itself, attempts to place a chilling effect on the trade of four identified minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The provision and its subsequent rule, surprisingly delegated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (an agency lacking subject matter expertise in minerals) presents a case and object lesson of almost every cost, procedural and legal error that can take place …

Universal Anti-Bribery Legislation 
Can Save International Business: A Comparison Of The Fcpa And The Ukba In An Attempt To Create 
Universal Legislation To Combat
 Bribery Around The Globe, Lindsey Hills

Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business

No abstract provided.

Apple And Amazon’S Antitrust Antics: Two Wrongs Don’T Make A Right, But Maybe They Should, Kerry Gutknecht

CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Technology Policy (1993-2015)

No abstract provided.

Is There A Vatican School For Competition Policy?, Tihamer Toth

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

This Article examines whether the Catholic Church’s social teaching has something to tell antitrust scholars and masters of competition policy. Although papal encyclical letters and other documents are not meant to provide an analytical framework giving clear answers to complex competition questions, this does not mean that these thoughts cannot benefit businessmen, scholars, and policy makers. The Vatican teaching helps us remember that business and morality do not belong to two different worlds, and that markets should serve the whole Man. It acknowledges the positive role of free markets,that is, the exercise of economic freedom as being an important part …

Ending Reverse-Payment Immunity: A Proposed Framework For Antitrust Scrutiny Under California’S Cartwright Act, Anthony Serrao

McGeorge Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Authority In Wto Law: A Commentary On The Appellate Body's Decision In China-Rare Earths, Julia Ya Qin

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

An Evolving Ncaa Leading To An Expanding Client List, 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 463 (2014), Frank Battaglia

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

On the heels of the popular March Madness National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) Basketball tournament, and following Northwestern University student-athletes’ success in unionizing, the extent of student-athlete publicity rights is now more contentious than ever. The divide between an ever-profiting NCAA and exploited NCAA student-athletes has sparked an evolving class-action lawsuit by former student-athletes, who challenge the licensing of their images and likenesses. This lawsuit has become a landmark test of the NCAA’s governance and notions about amateurism in college athletics. The outcome of this case will be a possible sign that compensation for both current and former student-athletes may …

Defining Unreasonably Exclusionary Conduct: The 'Exclusion Of A Competitive Rival' Approach, Thom Lambert

Faculty Publications

Unreasonably exclusionary conduct, the element common to monopolization and attempted monopolization offenses under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, remains essentially undefined. Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have purported to define the term, but the definitions they have offered are so indeterminate as to be, in the words of one prominent commentator, “not just vague but vacuous.” Seeking to fill the void left by the courts, antitrust scholars have in recent years proposed four universal definitions of unreasonably exclusionary conduct. Each, however, is deficient: One would fail to deter a substantial amount of anticompetitive conduct, and the other …

Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.

Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …

Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …

The Enigma Of The Single Entity, Mark Anderson

Articles

No abstract provided.

Kamakahi V. Asrm: The Egg Donor Price Fixing Litigation, Kimberly D. Krawiec

Faculty Scholarship

In April 2011, Lindsay Kamakahi caused an international stir by suing the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), SART-member fertility clinics, and a number of egg donor agencies on behalf of herself and other oocyte donors. The suit challenged the ASRM-SART oocyte donor compensation guidelines, which limit payments to egg donors to $5,000 ($10,000 under special circumstances), as an illegal price-fixing agreement in violation of United States antitrust laws.

Ensuing discussion of the case has touched on familiar debates surrounding coercion, commodification, and exploitation. It has also revealed many misconceptions about oocyte donation, …

Towards The Heart Of The Sport: A Sporting Perspective On Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture V. American Quarter Horse Association, Samuel D. Hinkle, Maria Gall

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

Speculative Tech: The Bitcoin Legal Quagmire & The Need For Legal Innovation, Paul H. Farmer Jr.

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Standard Essential Patents, Trolls, And The Smartphone Wars: Triangulating The End Game, 119 Penn St. L. Rev. 1 (2014), Daryl Lim

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

Few legal issues in recent years have captured the public's attention more powerfully than litigation over standard essential patents (“SEPs”). This Article explains how SEP litigation overlaps with two other major centers of patent litigation--litigation involving smartphones and patent assertion entities (“PAEs”). It observes that attempting to pre-empt patent hold-ups by imposing blanket ex ante disclosure obligations and royalty caps on standard setting organizations (“SSOs”) is misdirected and counterproductive. Instead, the solution lies in clear and balanced rules to determine “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) royalties and injunctive relief. This solution will help parties make more realistic assessments of their …