Print Archive

Print
Article
81.3
Intellectual Property versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate
Benjamin N. Roin
Hieken Assistant Professor of Patent Law, Harvard Law School

Thanks to Lucian Bebchuk, Glenn Cohen, Einer Elhauge, Terry Fisher, John Goldberg, Allison Hoffman, Louis Kaplow, Scott Kieff, Martha Minow, Kevin Outterson, Steven Shavell, and the attendees at the Harvard Law and Economics Workshop, Harvard Health Policy Workshop, Harvard Faculty Workshop, University of Toronto Health Law, Ethics and Policy Seminar, George Washington Law School Conference on Government Innovation, and Michigan Law School Conference on FDA Law & Pharmaceutical Innovation. All errors are my own.

Behavioral Economics Intellectual Property Patent
Print
Article
81.3
Constitutional Outliers
Justin Driver
Professor of Law and Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School

I received insightful feedback on this project from Mitchell Berman, Laura Ferry, Kim Forde-Mazrui, Brandon Garrett, Jacob Gersen, Julius Getman, Michael Gilbert, Risa Goluboff, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Aziz Huq, Jennifer Laurin, Sanford Levinson, Charles Mackel, John Manning, Martha Minow, Melissa Murray, Lucas Powe, David Pozen, Saikrishna Prakash, Richard Primus, David Rabban, Benjamin Sachs, Richard Schragger, Jordan Steiker, Matthew Stephenson, and faculty workshop participants at the University of Texas. I also received exemplary research assistance from Patrick Leahy, Trevor Lovell, Liam McElhiney, Jim Powers, and Brian Walsh. I completed various portions of this Article when I was a visiting assistant professor at The University of Chicago Law School during Fall 2012 and a visiting assistant professor at the University of Virginia School of Law during Spring 2013.

Constitutional Law Legal History State Law
Print
Article
81.3
Following Lower-Court Precedent
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Associate Professor, University of Houston Law Center.

For helpful comments, I thank Andrew Coan, Jim Hawkins, Toby Heytens, Randy Kozel, David Kwok, Anita Krishnakumar, Ethan Leib, Hillel Levin, Teddy Rave, Michael Solimine, audiences at South Texas College of Law and the University of Houston Law Center, and the editors of this journal. I thank David Klein and Stefanie Lindquist for sharing data that I used to perform some calculations in Part III.A. I thank Andrew Campbell and Kirsty Davis for research assistance.

Appellate Law Empirical Analysis Judicial Decision-Making
Print
Book review
84.4
The Nefarious Intentions of the Framers?
Paul Finkelman
President, Gratz College in Melrose Park, Pennsylvania. Also currently serves as Fulbright Chair in Human Rights and Social Justice, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, and John E. Murray Visiting Professor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law

The timing of Professor Michael Klarman’s The Framers’ Coup is fortuitous. Under a never-used constitutional provision, twenty-eight states have asked for a convention to write a balanced budget amendment.

Constitutional Law Legal History
Print
Comment
84.4
The Label Test: Simplifying the Tax Injunction Act after NFIB v Sebelius
Brett J. Wierenga
BA 2014, Hillsdale College; MSc 2015, University of Oxford; JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School

In National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (“NFIB”), the Supreme Court maintained both its jurisdiction over the case and the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by threading the needle between the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) and Congress’s taxing power under the Constitution.

Affordable Care Act Statutory Interpretation Tax Law Textualism
Print
Comment
84.4
Testing for Multisided Platform Effects in Antitrust Market Definition
Patrick R. Ward
JD/PhD (Economics) Candidate, The University of Chicago

The author wishes to thank Professor Randal Picker as well as Mila Rusafova, Emily Samra, and the members of The University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful thoughts and suggestions.

Given myriad business practices and conditions, establishing certain antitrust harms requires context.

Antitrust Law Behavioral Economics Business Organizations Law and Economics