[LRTW] Final AO presentations

Class meeting time:

  • 12:30 (Fri.): 11am
  • 1/9 (Mon.): 10am

Important notes:

  • As a presenter, you are expected to present your arguments anew, as in a conference; in other words, pretend we haven’t heard them before.
  • As a reviewer, you are expected to review the logical coherence of the arguments, the bluebooking of cited resources, and presentation performance.
  • All are expected to read everyone else’s AO, in addition to the one you review. This is your last chance to shore up your participation score.
  • Learn to take good control of your time (note the time is allocated differently from the other class). Highlight your main arguments when time is short, and elaborate when time permits.
  • Each session lasts roughly 1 hr. (see time allocation table below).

Order of Presentations: to be decided via lottery on site.

Pairing (not the order of presentations) :

presenter reviewer
12/30
之穎 子楠
子楠 羽芯
惠暄 宇哲
1/9
乃云 凱心
凱心 乃云
宇哲 惠暄
羽芯 之穎

Time Allocation:

presentation 20 min.
review 10 min.
open discussion 15 min.
author’s final response 5 min.
moderator’s time 10 min.
Advertisements

[LRTW] 12/13 Law & Society Methods and Comparative Studies

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence M. Friedman, Looking Backward, Looking Forward, 28 Ind. L. Rev. 259 (1994).
  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, 120-24 (2006).

Additional Reading:

  • Lawrence M. Friedman, Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture, 98 Yale L.J. 1579 (1989).

[Antitrust] 12/13 False Advertising

Mandatory:

  • POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014).

Additional:

  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014).
  • Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003).
  • FTC, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR Part 255 (2009) and the 2010 Q&A.
  • FTC Advertising FAQ’s: A Guide for Small Business (PDF version).
  • Michael D. Scott, FTC, the Unfairness Doctrine, and Data Security Breach Litigation, 60 Admin. L. Rev. 127 (2008).
  • Thomas W. Edman, Note, Lies, Damn Lies, and Misleading Advertising: The Role of Consumer Surveys in the Wake of Mead Johnson v. Abbott Labs, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 417 (2001).
  • Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Laboratories, 201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2000), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000).
  • Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 782 F.2d 381 (2d Cir. 1986).

[Antitrust] 11/29 Mergers & Acquisitions

Mandatory:

Additional:

  • DOJ Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
  • German Federal Cartel Office, Guidance on Substantive Merger Control (2012).
  • United States v. General Dynamics, 415 U. S. 486 (1974).
  • FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568 (1967).
  • Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962).
  • FTC  v. Whole Foods Market, 548 F.3d 1028 (2008).
  • Omnicare, Inc. v. Unitedhealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).

[Antitrust] 11/22 Exclusionary Practices

Mandatory reading:
  • Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Predatory Pricing and Related Practices, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 697 (1975).

Additional reading:

  • Bus. Electr. Corp. v. Sharp Electr. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988)
  • FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986).
  • Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (1985).
  • Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941).
  • Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 509 U.S. 209 (1993).
  • Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing, 472 U. S. 585 (1985).
  • Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. 451 (1992).
  • Christopher R. Leslie, Predatory Pricing and Recoupment, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 1695 (2013).
  • Daniel A. Crane, The Paradox of Predatory Pricing, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2005).
  • Patrick Bolton, Joseph F. Brodley & Michael H. Riordan, Predatory Pricing: Strategic Theory and Legal Policy, 88 Geo. L.J. 2239 (2000).
  • Thomas A. Lambert, Defining Unreasonably Exclusionary Conduct: The “Exclusion of a Competitive Rival” Approach, 92 N.C. L. Rev. 1175 (2014).
  • 73 Antitrust L.J. xxx, Symposium–Aspen Skiing 20 Years Later (2005).
  • Kenneth L. Glazer, Concerted Refusals to Deal Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 70 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2002).
  • Gary Minda, The Law and Metaphor of Boycott, 41 Buff. L. Rev. 807 (1993).
  • Abbott B. Lipsky, Jr. & J. Gregory Sidak, Essential Facilities, 51 Stan. L. Rev. 1187 (1999).

[LRTW] 10/5 Major Resources for Legal Research

Exercises:

  • United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S. Ct. 1698 (1966).
  • Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS (2007).
  • United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  • Polygram Holding v. FTC, 416 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir., 2005).
  • 148 F.2d 416.
  • 148 F.2d at 421.
  • Charles Reich, The New Property (1964).
  • Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (1961).
  • Christine Jolls, Cass R. Sunstein & Richard Thaler, A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1471 (1998).
  • Articles by Justice Sotomayor.
  • Articles citing Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
  • Articles citing Ely’s “Democracy and Distrust.”
  • Most recent article by Bill Simon of Columbia Law.
  • Articles published by Columbia Law School in the last 30 days.
  • 有關同性婚姻與多元家庭的文章。
  • 有關廢除死刑的文章。

Homework:

  • 研讀大法官釋字 689號解釋,並整理解釋理由與一個(部分)不同意見書之論點大綱.

[Antitrust] 10/14-21 Restraints of Trade

Mandatory reading:

  • Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977).
  • Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 551 U.S. 877 (2007).
  • US v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015).

Additional reading:

Horizontal Restraints Cases
  • Realcomp II, Ltd. v. F.T.C., 635 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2011).
  • American Needle v. National Football League, 130 S. Ct. 2201 (2010).
  • Polygram Holding v. FTC, 416 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir., 2005).
  • NCAA v. University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).
  • Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979).
  • Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 (1918).
Vertical Restraints Cases
  • F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).
  • State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997).
  • Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968).
  • Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911).
Articles
  • Gregory J. Werden, Antitrust’s Rule of Reason: Only Competition Matters, 79 Antitrust L.J. 713 (2014).
  • David Eisenstadt, James Langenfeld, The Role of Economics in Truncated Rule of Reason Analysis, 28-SUM Antitrust 52 (2014).
  • Geoffrey D. Oliver, Of Tenors, Real Estate Brokers and Golf Clubs: A Quick Look at Truncated Rule of Reason Analysis, 24-SPG Antitrust 40 (2010).
  • Thomas M. Jorde & David J. Teece, Rule of Reason Analysis of Horizontal Arrangements: Agreements Designed to Advance Innovation and Commercialize Technology, 61 Antitrust L.J. 579 (1993).
  • Robert H. Bork, Resale Price Maintenance and Consumer Welfare, 77 Yale L. J. 950 (1968).
  • Robert Bork, The Rule of Reason and the Per Se Concept: Price Fixing and Market Division, 74 Yale L.J. 775 (1965) and 75 Yale L.J. 373 (1966).