Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 227 Results in Patents
TOTM I’ve posted to SSRN my new article (co-authored by my colleague Bruce Kobayashi), Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup. . . .
I’ve posted to SSRN my new article (co-authored by my colleague Bruce Kobayashi), Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup. We presented an earlier version of our analysis at the George Mason/ Microsoft Conference on the Law and Economics of Innovation and benefited significantly from comments from the discussants and participants. We take an approach grounded in the economics of federalism and recent Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence in arguing for substantive limits on antitrust enforcement of patent holdup in favor of reliance on patent law as well as state common law. Along the way we discuss recent cases and enforcement actions involving patent holdup, including the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Rambus, Broadcom, and N-Data. If you’re a reader interested in patent holdup and related issues, please give the paper a read. Comments welcome (here or email me).
Read the full piece here.
TOTM 2008 has been a busy year for Harvard Professor Einer Elhauge so far from the looks of his SSRN page (not to mention advising Senator . . .
2008 has been a busy year for Harvard Professor Einer Elhauge so far from the looks of his SSRN page (not to mention advising Senator Obama on legal policies). He’s posted three new working papers covering a diverse set of antitrust topics…
TOTM The D.C. Circuit’s opinion is available here. Here is one of the key passages explaining the D.C. Circuit’s logic… Read the full piece here.
The D.C. Circuit’s opinion is available here. Here is one of the key passages explaining the D.C. Circuit’s logic…
TOTM Tom Barnett (DOJ Antitrust AG) gave a speech February 29th to the Federalist Society where he touched upon a number of interesting issues we’ve discussed . . .
Tom Barnett (DOJ Antitrust AG) gave a speech February 29th to the Federalist Society where he touched upon a number of interesting issues we’ve discussed from time to time here at TOTM. Some highlights…
TOTM Along with my Lewis & Clark colleague, Joe Miller, I have organized a conference on the patent law doctrine of obviousness following the Supreme Court’s . . .
Along with my Lewis & Clark colleague, Joe Miller, I have organized a conference on the patent law doctrine of obviousness following the Supreme Court’s KSR case last term. It’s a great line-up of participants, and should be an excellent conference.
TOTM A pair of interesting antitrust appellate decisions have been released over the past few days involving single firm conduct and Section 2: Cascade Health Solutions . . .
A pair of interesting antitrust appellate decisions have been released over the past few days involving single firm conduct and Section 2: Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth (9th Cir.) and Broadcom v. Qualcomm (3rd Cir.).
TOTM To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today. More information . . .
To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today. More information as it becomes available.
For those looking for a little insight into the case, you might be interested in The FTC’s 1998 Complaint against Intel and the resulting Consent Decree (the entire case file is here).
TOTM In my last post I claimed that there is a no “free market economics orthodoxy” amongst antitrust economists or those working in the field of . . .
In my last post I claimed that there is a no “free market economics orthodoxy” amongst antitrust economists or those working in the field of law and economics. In response to the post, an anonymous TOTM reader emails the following related, and probably more interesting, questions: “is there a free market orthodoxy amongst (1) legal commentators and (2) the Supreme Court?”
TOTM Thom’s excellent post covers most of the important points in Leegin and offers a fairly comprehensive critique of what I deemed to be a surprisingly . . .
Thom’s excellent post covers most of the important points in Leegin and offers a fairly comprehensive critique of what I deemed to be a surprisingly weak dissent from Justice Breyer. As we’ve noted over and over here at TOTM, the death of Dr. Miles is clearly the right outcome judged based upon the underlying antitrust fundamentals. As Thom and I have pointed out in various posts on RPM here at TOTM, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that anticompetitive RPM is much talked about but rarely observed or documented. Given that the bulk of the contemporary evidence on RPM suggests that it is largely pro-competitive, I must admit that I was surprised by Tyler Cowen’s “casual guess” in a post at the VC that >50% of RPM are associated with attempts to collude.