[LRTW] 10/5 Major Resources for Legal Research


  • 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。


  • 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).
  • 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] 9-21 Thesis Construction


  • 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] 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).
Law & Economics

[lawecon] 6/21-22 Paper Presentations

Class meeting time: 9:30 on 1/21 (Tue.).

Important notes:

  • The order of presentations will be decided by drawing at the beginning on Thursday.
  • 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 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 1:20 or so. (see the time allocation table below).

Presenter-reviewer Pairing (but NOT the order of presentations):

presenter reviewer
吳宇 林君蓉
陳怡辰 蕭明月
徐彥婷 黃麗瑾
林君蓉 羅蘭
蕭明月 徐彥婷
葉欣茹 鄭之穎
莊敏瑄 葉欣茹
鄭之穎 徐敏榕
黃麗瑾 陳怡辰
徐敏榕 吳宇
羅蘭 莊敏瑄

Time Allocation:

presentation 25 min.
review 10 min.
open discussion 20 min.
author’s final response 10 min.
moderator’s time 15 min.
Law & Economics

[lawecon] 5/11 Criticisms and the Behavioral Approach


  • Christine Jolls, Cass R. Sunstein & Richard Thaler, A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1471 (1998). (If you can’t finish the whole article, read at least Part I and Part II A., p.1473-97.)


  • Margaret Jane Radin, The Colin Ruagh Thomas O’fallon Memorial Lecture on Reconsidering Personhood, 74 Or. L. Rev. 423 (1995).
  • Articles in Behavioral Law and Economics (Cass R. Sunstein, Ed., 2000).
Comm. Law, cyberlaw, media law

[commlaw] 5/31 Privacy vs. Commercial Interests

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, ch.11 (If you haven’t finished it yet.)
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7. (If you didn’t read it last week.)
  • If you have finished both of them, read something below.

Important Cases:

  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (decided May 16, 2016).
  • In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y., 2001).

Additional Reading:


  • What is “big data”? If “big data” collects only anonymous data, does it still pose any threat to our privacy? (敏瑄)