Thursday, August 31, 2006

Conference on 20th Anniversary of Matsushita--September 29, Loyola University Chicago Law School

Professor Spencer Waller, the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies, and the Loyola University Chciago Law Journal have organized a tremendous conference on the 20th Anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Matsushita.   The program can be donwloaded here:  Download antitrust_final2.pdf .   Given the Supreme Court's grant of cert in the Twombly case, this conference is particularly timely. 

August 31, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Blockbuster's antitrust counterclaims go forward

Judge lets Blockbuster antitrust suit go forward

A federal judge in San Francisco has allowed video rental giant to proceed with antitrust claims against online rival Netflix, which has sued Blockbuster for alleged patent violations. Netflix had asked the court to dismiss Blockbuster's countersuit, to split the two lawsuits into separate proceedings, and to postpone discovery on the antitrust lawsuit until its patent claims are resolved. In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejected on Tuesday all three motions, saying Blockbuster "adequately pled its antitrust counterclaims" and that Netflix did not show it would be harmed by allowing both sets of claims to proceed together.


August 23, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, August 14, 2006

8th Annual Sedona Conference on Antitrust Law and Litigation

The 8th Annual Sedona Conference on Antitrust Law and Litigation will be held on October 26-27 at the Hilton Sedona Resort in Arizona’s beautiful red-rock country. Every year The Sedona Conference brings together a diverse group of antitrust law luminaries for a two-day, high-level, small-group dialogue on cutting issues and future trends. The central topics of the Conference will be issues relating to international antitrust enforcement and the current direction of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to domestic antitrust enforcement. A press release with more details and the faculty list is attached. A complete agenda, faculty bios, and a registration form are available from The Sedona Conference website at Registration is $1095/person and limited to 40 people to ensure an intimate environment for meaningful and constructive dialogue. While there is a $100/person discount for two or three people registering from the same firm at the same time, no more than three people from any one firm will be registered to ensure balance.

The Sedona Conference is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) research and educational institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights. Through a combination of Conferences, Working Groups, and the "magic" of dialogue, The Sedona Conference seeks to move the law forward in a reasoned and just way.

August 14, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, August 3, 2006

More on the Wright Amendment Controversy

This article from the Friday, July 28, issue of the Dallas Morning News reports on futher developments on the Wright Amendment controversy as Congress is poised to pass legislation codifying the controversial agreement among Love, DFW, the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, Southwest Airlines, and American Airlines.

August 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

FTC Unanimously Finds Rambus Monopolized

Unanimously reversing the ALJ's 2004 decision in favor of Rambus,  the FTC determined that Rambus, the California chip company,  monopolized the market for four computer memory technologies in participating in the JEDEC standard setting process in the 1990's without disclosing its patent position.   I tried to upload the Commission's opinion and order, but they were to big.  Instead, here is a link to the site with the orders.   The FTC's decision that Rambus acted in an unfair and deceptive maner by not withholding its patent stake in the JEDEC standard contrasts with the Federal Circuit's decision in 2003 in favor of Rambus in a patent infringement suit against Infeon.

August 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)