Search

The prohibition of exploitative abuse has attracted increasing attention in recent years, activated by many modern issues, also involving intellectual property rights. This article takes a bird's-eye view of the policy distance between the United States, a core supporter of nonintervention, and the European Union, a core supporter of modest intervention. The article also examines the response of Japanese law, which includes the prevention of abuse of a superior bargaining position, a functional equivalent to the prohibition of exploitative abuse in this context. The provision against abuses of a superior bargaining position in Japan has been recently enforced in the context of private lawsuits as well. Such a holistic research framework will enable us to explore the potential responses of competition law to the challenges raised by data protection, the sharing economy, and other modern issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the controversies surrounding laws governing single-firm and their anticompetitive conduct in the U.S. Topics discussed include creating, protecting, and enhancing monopoly power without creating proportionate benefits for consumers; analysis of proposals for "profit-focused" tests for their exclusionary conduct; and United States v. Microsoft Corp.; and Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP cases on the same.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Office of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP regarding the appropriability as the reason that anticompetitive conduct with the antitrust enforcement. It mentions that antitrust enforcement against dominant firm exclusion expected to increase its research and development. It also mentions that monopolization of firms such as Microsoft, IBM, and Xerox in context of antitrust enforcement.

The article focuses on the growing of the clearinghouses and financial market infrastructures (FMls) with role of antitrust in regulated industries. It mentions that the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLPP regarding the balance between regulation and competition policy for essential facilities doctrine. It also mentions that the antitrust actions brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) with safeguards against foreclosure.

The article focuses on the development of the essential facilities doctrine and its potential applicability to intellectual property rights (IPRs). It mentions that essential facilities doctrine to IPRs in China and the impact of anti-monopoly law of China on harm consumers. It also mentions that U.S. court cases concerning essential facilities doctrine including Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. and Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

Next-generation sequencing broadens the debate about appropriate regulatory oversight of genetic testing and may force scholars to move beyond familiar privacy and health and safety regulatory issues to address new problems with industry structure and economic regulation. The genetic testing industry is passing through a period of profound structural change in response to shifts in technology and in the legal environment. Making genetic testing safe and effective for consumers increasingly requires access to comprehensive genomic data infrastructures that can support accurate, state-of-the-art interpretation of genetic test results. At present, there are significant barriers to access and there is no sector-specific regulator with power to ensure appropriate data access. Without it, genetic testing will not be safe for consumers even when it is performed at CLIA-certified laboratories using tests that have been FDA-cleared or approved. This article explores the emerging structure of the genetic testing industry and describes its present economic regulatory vacuum. In view of this gap in regulation, the article explores whether generally applicable law, particularly antitrust law, may offer solutions to the industry's data access problems. It concludes that courts may have a useful role to play, particularly in Europe and other jurisdictions where the essential facilities doctrine enjoys continued vitality. After Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, the role of U.S. federal courts is less certain. Congress has demonstrated willingness to address access issues as they emerged in other infrastructure industries in recent decades. This article expresses no preference between legislative and judicial solutions. Its aim is simply to highlight an emerging economic regulatory issue which, if left unresolved, presents real health and safety concerns for consumers who receive genetic tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues on the judicial opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court on the role of antitrust within the administrative law jurisprudence. Topics discussed include the decision of the Supreme Court on lawsuit Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP, views of professor Philip Weiser on the separation of powers, and the importance of antitrust doctrines for administrative law jurisprudence. It further mentions the decision on Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut.

This Article challenges the various jurisdictional theories that underpin the FCC's net neutrality regulation. The assertion of jurisdiction by the FCC over any aspect of the Internet ecosystem has raised populist, congressional, and even judicial rhetoric to a crescendo and resulted in a recent vote to defund the FCC's efforts. This Article places the current crisis squarely in the context of the long-standing jurisdictional struggle between regulation and antitrust law. These two regimes are often at jurisdictional cross-purposes because, even though they both purport to maximize the social good, they do so by inapposite means. Indeed, there is a policy choice inherent in the very jurisdictional authority permitted each regime--a choice that the FCC's jurisdictional bases for net neutrality may actually circumvent and obfuscate. Focusing on the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP and the D.C. Circuit's decision in Comcast Corp. v. FCC, this Article examines the jurisdictional boundaries between the regulatory and antitrust camps. In analyzing the jurisdictional limits of each through the lens of the net neutrality debate, this Article reveals opportunities for congressional reforms beyond mere rhetoric. To identify problematic uses of regulatory authority, this Article: (1) creates an innovative grouping of possible bases for regulatory authority labeled "satellite jurisdiction" and (2) proposes a new framework to classify possible jurisdictional overreach in what the author brands as either "procedural opportunism" or "substantive opportunism." Finally, this Article recommends a new standard by which both procedural and substantive jurisdictional opportunism may be tempered and antitrust authority maximized where most salutary and appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how intellectual property doctrines promote competition in technological innovation in U.S. The author argues that intellectual property and antitrust together form a body of competition policy whose role is to promote innovation. It explains the set of Supreme Court cases such as the Quanta Computers Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. on patent licensing and the first sale doctrine, and the Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko LLP on an antitrust case.

The article discusses the intersection of antitrust law and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as depicted in the U.S. Supreme Court case contested between Verizon Communications Inc. and Law Office of Curtis V. Trinko LLP. Antitrust law concerns with competition, while the Telecommunications Act aims to create a meaningful competition in local telecommunication. In this case, the court needs to come up with a model to apply both the laws without encountering conflicts.

The article analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the case between Verizon Communications Inc. versus Law Offices of Curtis Trinko LLP. The court claims that the refusal of the telephone company to share its network with competitors does not violate section 2 of the Sherman Act. The said decision depicts the opposition of the court on some aspects of antitrust law especially its considerable disadvantages.

The article discusses the application of the no economic sense test in the case Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP versus Verizon Communications Inc. before the U.S. Supreme Court. The law office decided to file a lawsuit against the incumbent local exchange carrier alleging that it failed to provide AT&T Corp. access to its facilities and cited the provision in Sherman Antitrust Act. The reason of the court in using this type of test is to define exclusionary conduct.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP," which created a change on the monopolization law stated in the Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case requires a lot of procedural grounds to support the court's decision. Despite of the absence of particular approach in resolving the uncompetitive conduct among monopolized businesses, the Telecommunication Act played a vital role to arrive at a decision.

The article criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The authors argue that the decision was based on two faulty assumptions about the regulated industries in the country. They believe that the decision's reliance on these assumptions makes it controversial and defective.

The article examines the role of intellectual property law and antitrust law in the knowledge economy in the U.S. The premise of this article is that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP" signifies a shift in the legal approach to intellectual property. However, a unified approach to intellectual property and antitrust law is necessary since intellectual property is now America's largest export.

The article criticizes the Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The author argues that by relying on faulty assumptions about the regulated industry limits the scope of antitrust enforcement. He also asserts that the decision contradicts both the outcome in the case "United States v. AT&T" and the theory on which that case rested.

The article examines the antitrust law and regulation in relation to the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP" in the U.S. The authors examine the economic genesis of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the origins of the dispute. The implications of this case for substantive antitrust policy in the regulated context are analyzed.

The article presents a discussion on the controversies brought about by the Supreme Court's decision on "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." One of the controversies involves the difference between antitrust laws with that of regulations based on functionality and doctrines The failure of judges to consider the existing telecommunications policy for the case is examined.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The decision has attracted several attentions in compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act which required the exchange carrier to provide access to its network to other firms which seek to provide telephone service locally. The case provide thoughtful contributions to the continuing debates over the pronouncement on monopolization law under section two of the Serman Act.

The Supreme Court's decision in Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP marks a significant doctrinal ship in the long struggle to develop standards for exclusionary conduct prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Yet Trinko's incautious treatment of exclusionary conduct and its uncertain scope threaten to add more confusion to Section 2 jurisprudence. In this Note, Frank X. Schoen examines the manner in which Trinko has narrowed the grounds for stating a claim for exclusionary conduct and argues that Trinko should be interpreted as signaling a doctrinal departure from traditional frameworks for determining unlawful exclusionary conduct in favor of a short-term profit-sacrifice standard. However, the doctrinal tensions within the decision itself counsel a much narrower reading than might otherwise seem appropriate. This Note concludes that Trinko must be read narrowly to apply only to unilateral refusals to deal where prior courses of dealing or dealings with third parties provide the appropriate baseline for evaluating the conduct. Limiting Trinko to these circumstances addresses the Court's concerns regarding the identification of and remedy for illegal exclusionary conduct and, moreover, accords with the rationales underlying the Court's deferential treatment of price competition and innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Offers a look on some insights from the Supreme Court judgment in a case involving Verizon Communications Inc. and Law Offices of Trinko with a view to enlightening the current debate taking place in the European Union over the proper scope of application of Article 82 of the European Commission (EC). Background on the case; Reason for the relevance of the Trinko judgment to EC competition law; Information on lessons that EC competition lawyers can learn from the decision.