Article

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.

2
Article
87.2
The Effective Competition Standard: A New Standard for Antitrust
Marshall Steinbaum
Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Utah.
Maurice E. Stucke
Douglas A. Blaze Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law.

The authors would like to thank Peter Carstensen, Bert Foer, Gene Kimmelman, Jack Kirkwood, Ganesh Sitaraman, Sandeep Vaheesan, Spencer Weber Waller, and participants in the April 2018 Roosevelt Institute Twenty-First Century Antitrust Conference for their helpful comments.

2
Article
87.2
The Arc of Monopoly: A Case Study in Computing
Randal C. Picker
James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

I thank participants at the Symposium and in the Work-in-Progress Workshop at the Law School for comments and the Jerome F. Kutak Faculty Fund for its generous research support

2
Article
Chicago and Its Discontents
Timothy J. Muris
Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason Universi-ty; Senior Counsel at Sidley Austin LLP. Professor Muris previously served as the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection (1981–83), the Director of the Bureau of Competition (1983–85), and as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (2001–04).
Jonathan E. Nuechterlein
Partner, Sidley Austin LLP. Mr. Nuechterlein previously served as General Counsel of the FTC (2013–16).

We thank William Blumenthal, C. Frederick Beckner III, and the participants in the Law Review’s May 2019 Symposium on Reassessing the Chicago School of Antitrust for their helpful comments, as well as Dylan Naegele for his able research assistance.

2
Article
The Chicago Obsession in the Interpretation of US Antitrust History
William E. Kovacic
Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy, George Washington University Law School; Visiting Professor, King’s College London; and Non-Executive Director, United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority.

The author is grateful for comments from Andrew Gavil, participants at The University of Chicago Law Review’s annual symposium, and workshops at King’s College London and University College London. The author also thanks the staff of The University of Chicago Law Review for their excellent editorial guidance. The views expressed here are the author’s alone. Email: wkovacic@law.gwu.edu

2
Article
Labor Antitrust’s Paradox
Hiba Hafiz
Assistant Professor of Law, Boston College Law School.

I am deeply grateful to Eric Posner, Sanjukta Paul, Brian Callaci, and the participants of the Reassessing the Chicago School of Antitrust Law Symposium for their helpful comments and suggestions.

2
Article
87.2
The Chicago School’s Limited Influence on International Antitrust
Anu Bradford
Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization, Columbia Law School, abradf@law.columbia.edu.
Adam S. Chilton
Professor of Law, Walter Mander Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School, adamchilton@uchicago.edu.
Filippo Maria Lancieri
JSD Candidate, The University of Chicago Law School, filippolancieri@uchicago.edu.

This Essay was prepared for the symposium organized by The University of Chicago Law Review on Reassessing the Chicago School of Antitrust Law, held on May 10–11, 2019. We thank the participants of the symposium for helpful feedback. Special thanks also to Patrick Todd for illuminating conversations. We are indebted to the over one hundred research assistants at Columbia Law School and The University of Chicago Law School that helped us gather and code the antitrust data we employ in this Essay. Our thanks also to the antitrust enforcers in the 103 agencies that generously provided information for this study. We gratefully acknowledge the funding by the National Science Foundation that supported the early data gathering effort (see NSF-Law & Social Sciences grants 1228453 & 1228483, awarded in September 2012). The coding was subsequently expanded with the generous support of the Columbia Public Policy Grant: “Does Antitrust Policy Promote Market Performance and Competitiveness?,” awarded in June 2015, and additional financial support from Columbia Law School. We also thank the Baker Scholars fund at The University of Chicago Law School for financial support. Except as otherwise noted, all data is available at the Comparative Competition Law Project website, http://comparativecompetitionlaw.org.

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.