Print Archive

Print
Article
87.3
Some Doubts About “Democratizing” Criminal Justice
John Rappaport
Assistant Professor of Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School.

I am indebted to Monica Bell, Merav Bennett, Stephanos Bibas, Andrew Crespo, Justin Driver, Roger Fairfax, Trevor Gardner, Bernard Harcourt, Emma Kaufman, Brian Leiter, Richard McAdams, Tracey Meares, Martha Nussbaum, Dan Richman, Jocelyn Simonson, Roseanna Sommers, and Fred Smith for terrific comments on drafts. Thanks as well to Will Baude, Genevieve Lakier, Lauren Ouziel, and participants at the Criminal Justice Roundtable, the Junior Criminal Justice Roundtable, the University of Chicago Works-in-Progress Workshop, and the University of Virginia Faculty Workshop for generative conversations. For research assistance, thanks to Merav Bennett, Dylan Demello, Morgan Gehrls, Alli Hugi, Kevin Kennedy, and especially Alex Song. The Darelyn A. and Richard C. Reed Memorial Fund furnished financial support.

For the uninitiated, a brief rehearsal of the facts of the matter: The United States presently incarcerates over two million individuals, with another four million under other forms of correctional supervision.

Print
Article
87.3
The Architecture of a Basic Income
Miranda Perry Fleischer
Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law, mirandafleischer@ sandiego.edu.

The Douglas Clark and Ruth Ann McNeese Faculty Research Fund at the University of Chicago Law School provided financial support for this project. For helpful comments, the authors thank Leslie Book, David Gamage, Eric Hemel, Kevin Kennedy, Benjamin Leff, Elisabeth Mayer, Susan Morse, Anna Stapleton, André Washington, Matt Zwolinski, Lawrence Zelenak, participants at the Brigham Young University Law School Tax Policy Colloquium, the Duke University School of Law Tax Policy Colloquium, the 2018 National Tax Association Annual Meeting, and editors of The University of Chicago Law Review.

Daniel Hemel
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, dhemel@ uchicago.edu.

The notion of a universal basic income, or UBI, has captivated academics, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and ordinary citizens in recent years. Across the globe, countries ranging from Brazil to Finland, the Netherlands, Italy, Kenya, Uganda, and Canada are conducting or have recently concluded pilot studies of a UBI.

Print
Essay
87.2
The Chicago School and the Forgotten Political Dimension of Antitrust Law
Ariel Katz
Associate Professor, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law.

The Chicago School, said to have influenced antitrust analysis inescapably, is associated today with a set of ideas and arguments about the goal of antitrust law. In particular, the Chicago School is known for asserting that economic efficiency is and should be the only purpose of antitrust law and that the neoclassical price theory model offers the best policy tool for maximizing economic efficiency in the real world; that corporate actions, including various vertical restraints, are efficient and welfare-increasing; that markets are self-correcting and monopoly is merely an occasional, unstable, and transitory outcome of the competitive process; and that governmental cures for the rare cases where markets fail to self-correct tend to be “worse than the disease.”

Print
Essay
87.2
The Case for “Unfair Methods of Competition” Rulemaking
Rohit Chopra
Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission. The views expressed here are Commissioner Chopra’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission or any other individual Commissioner.

For thoughtful engagement and comments, we are grateful to Scott Hemphill, William Kovacic, Fiona Scott Morton, Nancy Rose, Jonathan Sallet, Carl Shapiro, Sandeep Vaheesan, and Joshua Wright, as well as staff at the FTC and participants in the Symposium on Reassessing the Chicago School of Antitrust Law at The University of Chicago Law School. We also thank the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for careful editing.

Lina M. Khan
Academic Fellow, Columbia Law School; Counsel, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, US House Committee on the Judiciary; former Le-gal Fellow, Federal Trade Commission. This Essay reflects Ms. Khan’s views and not those of the US House Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members.

Open, competitive markets are a foundation of economic liberty. A lack of competition, meanwhile, can enable dominant firms to exercise their market power in harmful ways.

Print
Essay
87.2
Startup Acquisitions, Error Costs, and Antitrust Policy
Kevin A. Bryan
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Rotman School of Management.
Erik Hovenkamp
Assistant Professor, University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

High tech industries are not only lucrative, but also highly innovative and dynamic. Large firms are not their sole source of innovation, however.

Print
Essay
87.2
The Common Ownership Trilemma
José Azar
Assistant Professor, University of Navarra, IESE Business School, Av Pearson, 21, 08034 Barcelona, Spain, jazar@iese.edu.

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Empresa i Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Ref. 2016 BP00358.

Overlapping ownership of large publicly traded companies in the United States has grown dramatically in recent decades. The list of largest shareholders of almost any publicly traded company has a similar set of shareholders, namely the largest asset managers.
Print
Article
87.1
The Limits of Good Law: A Study of Housing Court Outcomes
Nicole Summers
Lecturer on Law and Clinical Instructor, Harvard Law School; Research Affili- ate, New York University Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. JD 2014, Harvard Law School; MALD 2014, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University; AB 2008, Brown University.

I thank Vicki Been for substantial support in designing the study that is the subject of this paper and for insightful comments at all stages of the writing process. For very helpful feedback on prior drafts of this piece, I am grateful to Yun-chien Chang, Russell Engler, Renagh O’Leary, Cristina Rodrigues, Jessica Steinberg, Paul Tremblay, and the participants in the NYU Colloquium on the Law, Economics, and Politics of Urban Affairs, the Harvard Law School Clinical Scholar- ship Workshop, and the Works in Progress Session at the American Association of Law Schools Conference on Clinical Legal Education. I am indebted to Maxwell Austensen, Maria (Mili) Chapado, and Xingzhi Wang for performing the data analyses used in the study. I also thank Rob Collinson and Luis Herskovic for providing additional data sup- port, and Alisa Numansyah for heroically collecting and scanning over one thousand case files across all five boroughs of New York City. Scott Davis, Ethan Fitzgerald, Andrew Gerst, and Alex Wilson provided excellent research assistance. Finally, I thank the Office of Court Administration and the New York City Department of Housing Preserva- tion and Development for providing data used in the study.

Print
Article
87.1
A Network Theory of Patentability
Laura G. Pedraza-Fariña
JD, PhD, Associate Professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

We thank Ronald Allen, Omri Ben-Shahar, Brian Casey, Shari Seidman Diamond, Janet Freilich, Ezra Friedman, Yaniv Heled, William Hubbard, Dmitry Karshtedt, Mark Lemley, Jonathan Masur, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Anya Prince, W. Nicholson Price II, Rachel Sachs, Ana Santos Rutschman, David Schwartz, Michal Shur-Ofry, Matthew Spitzer, and Patti Zettler for helpful insights and comments. In addition, we are grateful for feedback from participants at the DePaul University College of Law faculty workshop, Georgetown University Law School Workshop on Empirical Methods and Patents, Georgia State University faculty workshop, Stanford Law School faculty workshop, The University of Chicago Law School law and economics workshop, 2018 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC); CREATe Speaker Series at the University of Glasgow; Peking University School of Transnational Law Speaker Series; 2018 Regulation and Innovation in the Biosciences (RIBS) Conference at Washington University; University of Chicago–Tsinghua University Young Faculty Forum on Law & Social Science; and the University of Hong Kong Law & Technology Speaker Series. We also thank Michael Ellenberger for extraordinary research assistance.

Ryan Whalen
JD, PhD, Assistant Professor in the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law.
In the United States, and in every single patent system in the world, one patentability doctrine—the nonobviousness doctrine—stands as the cornerstone of the patent bargain. This bargain ensures that the government only grants the monopoly associated with a patent when the inventor has created something sufficiently different from what came before.
Print
Article
87.1
Tort Liability and the Risk of Discriminatory Government
Ehud Guttel
Bora Laskin Professor, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law
Ariel Porat
President, Tel Aviv University

For their helpful comments, we thank Christopher Kutz, Meirav Furth-Matzkin, Lee Fennell, Daniel Hemel, Saul Levmore, Barak Medina, Jonathan Masur, Mitchell Polinsky, Yuval Procaccia, Weijia Rao, Re’em Segev, Stephen Sugarman, George Triantis, Eyal Zamir, and participants in the Annual Meeting of the American Law and Economics Association and in faculty workshops at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, the University of Haifa, the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and Tel Aviv University. For superb research assistance, we thank Bar Dor and Niva Orion.

Print
Comment
86.8
Exculpatory Evidence Pre-plea without Extending Brady
Brian Sanders
BA 2017, Pepperdine University; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School

I thank Professor Douglas Baird for his critiques, especially in regard to big boy clauses. I thank Brendan Anderson, Tiberius Davis, and Zachary Reynolds for listening to me talk incessantly about exculpatory evidence and for providing indispensable feedback. I thank Charles F. Capps for all his insights and especially for his critique of my formal logic.