4,154 research outputs found
Solar-like oscillations in the metal-poor subgiant nu Indi: II. Acoustic spectrum and mode lifetime
Convection in stars excites resonant acoustic waves which depend on the sound
speed inside the star, which in turn depends on properties of the stellar
interior. Therefore, asteroseismology is an unrivaled method to probe the
internal structure of a star. We made a seismic study of the metal-poor
subgiant star nu Indi with the goal of constraining its interior structure. Our
study is based on a time series of 1201 radial velocity measurements spread
over 14 nights obtained from two sites, Siding Spring Observatory in Australia
and ESO La Silla Observatory in Chile. The power spectrum of the high precision
velocity time series clearly presents several identifiable peaks between 200
and 500 uHz showing regularity with a large and small spacing of 25.14 +- 0.09
uHz and 2.96 +- 0.22 uHz at 330 uHz. Thirteen individual modes have been
identified with amplitudes in the range 53 to 173 cm/s. The mode damping time
is estimated to be about 16 days (1-sigma range between 9 and 50 days),
substantially longer than in other stars like the Sun, the alpha Cen system or
the giant xi Hya.Comment: 5 pages, 7 figures, A&A accepte
Why a Large and Unjustified Payment Threshold Is Not Consistent with \u3ci\u3eActavis\u3c/i\u3e
This Article offers three reasons why a requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate a large and unjustified payment before reaching the rule of reason is not consistent with Actavis. First, nearly all of the Court’s discussion of large and unjustified payments occurred in contexts unrelated to the antitrust analysis that future courts were to apply. Second, the Court instructed lower courts to apply the rule of reason, not a new framework with a threshold it never mentioned. And third, such a threshold is inconsistent with the Court’s (1) allowance of shortcuts for plaintiffs to show anticompetitive effects and market power and (2) imposition of the burden on defendants to show justifications for a payment
How Not to Apply the Rule of Reason: The \u3cem\u3eO’Bannon\u3c/em\u3e Case
The case of O’Bannon v. NCAA has received significant attention. On behalf of a class of student-athletes, former college basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, challenging rules that prohibited payment for the use of names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in videogames, live game telecasts, and other footage. A Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that this restraint had anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. And it considered “less restrictive alternatives,” upholding payment for incidental educational expenses beyond tuition and fees, room and board, and required books, but rejecting a deferred $5,000 payment for NILs. Straddling the intersection of antitrust, intellectual property, and sports law, the O’Bannon case presents engaging and complex issues. Much of the complexity, however, is unnecessary. For it stems from a ruling that misconstrued antitrust law. In particular, the Ninth Circuit applied a version of the Rule of Reason that short-circuited the analysis and insufficiently deferred to a district court judge who presided over an exhaustive trial on amateurism
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self
A Review of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self by G. Edward Whit
Recommended from our members
Management practices to minimize volatile and dislodgeable foliar residues of turfgrass pesticides.
How Not to Apply the Rule of Reason: The \u3cem\u3eO’Bannon\u3c/em\u3e Case
The case of O’Bannon v. NCAA has received significant attention. On behalf of a class of student-athletes, former college basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, challenging rules that prohibited payment for the use of names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in videogames, live game telecasts, and other footage. A Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that this restraint had anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. And it considered “less restrictive alternatives,” upholding payment for incidental educational expenses beyond tuition and fees, room and board, and required books, but rejecting a deferred $5,000 payment for NILs. Straddling the intersection of antitrust, intellectual property, and sports law, the O’Bannon case presents engaging and complex issues. Much of the complexity, however, is unnecessary. For it stems from a ruling that misconstrued antitrust law. In particular, the Ninth Circuit applied a version of the Rule of Reason that short-circuited the analysis and insufficiently deferred to a district court judge who presided over an exhaustive trial on amateurism
A Real-World Analysis of Pharmaceutical Settlements: The Missing Dimension of Product Hopping
- …