Antitrust law - vertical maximum price fixing - Seventh Circuit applies per se prohibition but disputes its soundness. - Khan v. State Oil Co
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found in Khan v. State Oil Co. that the defendant's vertical maximum price fixing was a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but the Court questioned the precedent that it was relying on. While following Albrecht v. Herald Co., the Court claimed that it had been wrongly decided and cited instances where price ceilings would benefit consumer welfare. Courts should adopt an intermediate standard, between the rule of reason and the per se rules, that presumes illegality but allows the defendant to show lack of retail competition.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Sherman Act invalidation of the NCAA amateurism rules
Article Abstract:
The amateurism rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Assn (NCAA) represent an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act and should be invalidated by the courts. However, courts have upheld the rules as necessary to preserve college sports as a distinct product. Their decisions ignore the reality of intercollegiate athletics, which does not conform to the ideal of pure amateurism. The NCAA no-draft, no-agent and limited compensation rules allow athletes to be exploited and should be struck down.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Is the patent misuse doctrine obsolete?
Article Abstract:
The patent misuse doctrine should be retained as it was interpreted in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. Some commentators have argued that the patent misuse defense should simply be collapsed into the antitrust laws. The Mallinckrodt Court did employ rule of reason standards from antitrust law to determine whether the misuse was anticompetitive, but it retained a standing requirement that is more lenient than the one found under antitrust law.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Products liability law - freedom of speech - Ninth Circuit holds that California's products liability law does not cover false statements in a book
- Abstracts: Health plan cap on AIDS treatment reimbursements upheld. Sixth Circuit allows class action against group health plans administered or insured by Nationwide to proceed
- Abstracts: Must lawyers tell clients about ADR? Reducing firms' pro bono liabilities. Take care the suit isn't yours
- Abstracts: Residency, citizenship shape rates; foreign status. Recent legislation offers opportunities for tax and retirement planning in 1997, and the Clinton administration's budget proposes another set of changes
- Abstracts: History "lite" in modern American constitutionalism. The apportionment of "direct taxes": are consumption taxes constitutional?