Antitrust

[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).
Advertisements
Antitrust

[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

[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

[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

[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).
LRTW

[LRTW] 9-21 Thesis Construction

Homework

  • Read the opinion of the court in United States v. Grinnell Corp. (your antitrust law assignment), and write a 1-paragraph summary, in Chinese, of the facts (no more than 10 lines).
  • Write another summary of the court’s opinion in Part I (again, 1-paragraph, in Chinese, 10 lines or less).
  • Submit your summaries to the mailing list by the end of Mon. (9/19).
  • Prepare a 3-5 min. short talk, in English, commenting on the court’s opinion. (Feel free to take cues from the dissenting opinions.)
Antitrust

[Antitrust] 9/20-27 Market Definition & Market Power

Mandatory reading:

Additional reading:

  • Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911).
  • U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2nd Cir.1945) (Part I & II, *421 – 439).
  • United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956).
  • Louis Kaplow, Why (Ever) Define Markets?, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 437 (2010).
  • Mark a. Lemley & Mark P. Mckenna, Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP, 100 Geo. L.J. 2055 (2012).
  • 76 Antitrust L.J. xxx, Symposium: Issues at the Forefront of Monopolization and Abuse of Dominance (2010).
  • Wisdom of Compulsory Licensing for Pharmaceutical Patents, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 71 (2011).