Comment

Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based Approach to Antitrust Pleading in Standard Development Organization Cases

James E. Abell III

BA 2005, Vanderbilt University; JD 2008, The University of Chicago

Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based Approach to Antitrust Pleading in Standard Development Organization Cases on Facebook
Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based Approach to Antitrust Pleading in Standard Development Organization Cases on Twitter
Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based Approach to Antitrust Pleading in Standard Development Organization Cases on Email
Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based Approach to Antitrust Pleading in Standard Development Organization Cases on LinkedIn

In high-technology sectors, uniform industry standards are crucial for ensuring product compatibility. For decades, the government had the primary responsibility for developing these standards. Over the last several years, the government has increasingly delegated this responsibility to private standard development organizations (SDOs), and Congress passed the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004 to encourage private organizations to assume this role. SDOs rely on a consensus-based approach in which industry participants agree on which technology will comprise a particular standard.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Essay

Justifying Jones

M. Todd Henderson

Business Organizations Financial Regulation

Article

75.3

The Tax Advantage to Paying Private Equity Fund Managers with Profit Shares: What Is It? Why Is It Bad?

Chris William Sanchirico

Professor of Law, Business, and Public Policy and Codirector of the Center for Tax Law and Policy, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Wharton School, Business and Public Policy Department

For helpful comments, I thank Alan Auerbach, Alan Blinder, Mitchell Engler, Victor Fleischer, Mark Gergen, Kevin Hassett, James Hines, Mitchell Kane, Alex Raskolnikov, Julie Roin, Frank Sammartino, Daniel Shaviro, Joel Slemrod, Gene Seago, David Weisbach, Larry Zelenak, and participants at the University of Michigan’s Tax Policy Workshop Series and NYU’s Colloquium Series on Tax Policy and Public Finance. Special thanks to Reed Shuldiner and Michael Knoll for many useful discussions. This research was not supported by funding from any outside source. The working paper version of this Article was first circulated and posted on SSRN on June 25, 2007. See Chris William Sanchirico, The Tax Advantage to Paying Private Equity Fund Managers with Profit Shares: What is It? Why is It Bad? (University of Pennsylvania Institute for Law and Economics Research Paper No 07-14, June 25, 2007), online at http://ssrn.com/abstract= 996665 (visited June 8, 2008).

Business Organizations Financial Regulation Tax Law

Comment

75.4

Assessing the Viability and Virtues of Respondeat Superior for Nonfiduciary Responsibility in ERISA Actions

Bradley P. Humphreys

BA 2003, The University of Virginia; JD Candidate 2009, The University of Chicago

Business Organizations Financial Regulation Labor Law