[Antitrust] 11/25 Merger Control



[Antitrust] 11/12 Exclusionary Practices

Mandatory reading:

Additional reading:

  • Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006).
  • Verizon Commc’n Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004).
  • Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. 451 (1992).
  • Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984).
  • Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing, 472 U. S. 585 (1985).
  • 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).
  • Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320 (1961).
  • 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).
  • Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Predatory Pricing and Related Practices, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 697 (1975).

[IPLaw] 11/21 Trade Secret Law

Questions to Answer

  • What is the purpose of trade secret law?
  • What are the main differences between trade secret law and other intellectual property laws (patent/copyright/trademark laws)?
  • What is the regulatory structure of trade secret law? (How does the system work?)
  • What motivated the 2013 revision? What major changes were made?
  • What is all the brouhaha surrounding the draft Sensitive Technology Protection Act (敏感科技保護法)?
  • What is the relationship between trade secret law and employment law?
  • What is the relationship between trade secret law and privacy law?


[IPLaw] 11/21 Patent Law

Questions to Answer

  • What is the basic structure of patent law? (How does the system work?)
  • What is “patentable subject matter” (patent eligibility)?
  • Why is the term of protection for patent much shorter than copyright?
  • Why do patents need prior examination?
  • What is the exhaustion doctrine?
  • What is “the tragedy of anticommons”?
  • What are Patent Assertion Entities? Why are they often called patent trolls?
  • Are there any important changes to our Patent Act in recent years?
  • What is Leahy-Smith America Invents Act? What important changes did it bring?
  • Can you name a few recent patent law/policy controversies?

[Antitrust] 10/14-11/4 Restraints of Trade

Mandatory reading:

Additional reading:

Horizontal Restraints Cases
  • F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013).
  • American Needle v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010).
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
  • 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
  • Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977).
  • 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).
  • David Eisenstadt, James Langenfeld, The Role of Economics in Truncated Rule of Reason Analysis, 28-SUM Antitrust 52 (2014).
  • Gregory J. Werden, Antitrust’s Rule of Reason: Only Competition Matters, 79 Antitrust L.J. 713 (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).

[IPLaw] 10/31 Trademark Law

Questions to Answer

  • What is the purpose of trademark law?
  • What is the regulatory structure of trademark law? (How does the system work?)
  • Do trademarks have to be registered? Why?
  • Trademarks can be renewed while copyrights/patents can’t. Why?
  • What is trademark dilution?
  • Is there a first-sale doctrine in trademark law?
  • Is there any “fair use” defense in trademark law?
  • Can you name a few key differences between trademark law and copyright law?


[IPLaw] 10/31 Copyright Law

Questions to Answer

  • What is the purpose of copyright law?
  • What is the regulatory structure of copyright law? (How does the system work?)
  • What is the idea/expression distinction? Why is it necessary?
  • What is the copyright (property rights)/authorship (moral rights) distinction? Is it necessary? Why?
  • Why is copyright not perpetual?
  • What is the first-sale doctrine? Why is it necessary?
  • What is “fair use”? Why is it necessary?
  • Can you name a few recent copyright law/policy controversies?


[Antitrust] 9/23-30 Market Definition & Market Power

Mandatory reading:

Additional reading:

[lawecon] 6/23 & 24 Term paper presentations

Class meeting time: 9 am

Important notes:

  • The order of presentations will be decided by drawing at the beginning on Tuesday.
  • The reviewer is expected to examine the research questions, the assumptions (explicit or hidden), the analytical models of the paper, as well as the strength and weakness of its arguments. You’re the reviewer; be critical.
  • The reviewer should also look out for improper copy-pasting from other people’s works, inaccurate citations, and–for IE Law students–poor bluebooking jobs.
  • All are expected to read everyone else’s paper, 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. Highlight your main arguments when time is short, and elaborate when time permits.
  • Each session lasts 1:00 or so. (see the time allocation table below).

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

Pairing (not the order of presentations) :

presenter reviewer
Quentin Ming-Li
Nicolas Lina
Geoffroy Nicolas
Hanna Geoffroy
Stefan Hanna
Lina Stefan
妤彤 芷安
秀嬋 佳宜
鈞亭 妤彤
芷安 鈞亭
維真 佳儒
佳宜 維真
佳儒 秀嬋

Time Allocation:

presentation 22 min.
review 8 min.
open discussion 15 min.
author’s final response 5 min.
moderator’s time 10 min.

[Seminar] 6/2 Thesis Presentation

Some Observations & Comments:

  • Not bad overall. Congratulations!
  • Most obvious shortcoming: not meeting the eyes of your audience.
  • Don’t forget to add proper title to the name of your faculty advisor.
  • There should be a space between an English word and subsequent left bracket, as in: Porter_(1992), Porter_(波特), 0.511_(1.21).
  • For tables and graphs, “source” means the source of your data, not the table/graph itself.
  • Highlight your main findings/contributions/arguments.
  • Good time management takes preparation and practice.
  • A Challenge: can you present just as well in English?