Brief of Amici Curiae Law and Economics Scholars in Support of Appellee and Affirmance

In reliance on Qualcomm’s FRAND promises, key SSOs incorporated its technologies into wireless standards. Qualcomm takes the position that its patented technologies are essential to those standards and, therefore, that any firm making or selling a standard-compliant product infringes its patents. As a result, the SSOs’ incorporation of Qualcomm’s patented technologies into wireless standards created a huge market for licenses to Qualcomm’s SEPs.The district court held that Qualcomm used its chipset monopolies, not only to extract the high chip-set prices to which it was entitled, but also to perpetuate those monopolies by disadvantaging rival chip-makers and raising entry barriers. As a matter of law and economics, that holding is sound. At its core, this is yet another in a long line of cases dating back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States and United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. in which a monopolist violates the antitrust laws by using its market power to exclude rivals and entrench its monopoly.We address Qualcomm’s exclusionary conduct in two Parts. Part I explains why Qualcomm’s no license, no chips policy is unlawful under well-established antitrust principles. Part II discusses Qualcomm’s refusal to license chip-set rivals, which reinforces the no license, no chips policy and violates the antitrust laws

An experimental investigation of high amplitude panel flutter

Aluminum panel flutter tests at supersonic Mach number

A method for predicting the panel flutter fatigue life of Saturn 5 panels

Development of method for predicting fatigue life of panels under flutter conditions with application to Saturn 5 launch vehicle structure

Improving the Impact of Extension Through the Use of Anticipation Guides

In this article, we present the anticipation guide as a tool for preparing Extension audiences to learn the main points of Extension materials. Anticipation guides improve learner comprehension by appealing to an individual\u27s natural curiosity and helping the individual focus on key ideas. Anticipation guides can be used with all types of Extension materials and across all Extension programs. We describe how to create anticipation guides for use with Extension materials and explain how to use them effectively and easily. We also provide examples of anticipation guides based on various Extension topics

Atomistic Antitrust

Antitrust is atomistic: deliberately focused on trees, not forests. It pays attention to the consequences of individual acts alleged to be anticompetitive. That focus is misplaced. Companies and markets don\u27t focus on one particular act to the exclusion of all else. Business strategy emphasizes holistic, integrated planning. And market outcomes aren\u27t determined by a single act, but by the result of multiple acts by multiple parties in the overall context of the structure and characteristics of the market. The atomistic nature of modern antitrust law causes it to miss two important classes of potential competitive harms. First, the focus on individual acts, coupled with the preponderance of the evidence standard for proving a violation, means that antitrust can\u27t effectively deal with what we might call probabilistic competitive harm: multiple acts, any one of which might or might not harm competition. Second, atomistic antitrust tends to miss synergistic competitive harm: acts which are lawful when taken individually but which combine together in an anticompetitive way. Unfortunately, modern antitrust law has strayed too far down the atomistic pathway. Courts and agencies too often take a narrow, transaction-specific focus to challenged conduct. Instead of asking is the overall behavior of this company reducing competition in the market, they focus on a particular merger or challenged monopolistic practice in isolation. Courts and agencies need to move beyond atomistic antitrust and take a more holistic look at the circumstances and effects of an overall pattern of conduct. Our goal in this Article is to set out a framework for integrated antitrust, in which individual actions can be understood not just on their own but also as part of a comprehensive whole. Only by doing so can the legal system both return antitrust to its roots and bring antitrust into the modern context of the business decisions that courts must analyze today

How Economists Read Economic Texts

Using a “think aloud” framework previously applied to history, this research leads the investigation in how economists read economics text to improve students’ abilities to meet standards calling for reading, thinking, writing, and speaking like practitioners. Economic education has the reputation for being a difficult subject to teach and learn which is evidenced by disappointing individual and national economic literacy outcomes. This research finds precision, close reading, sourcing, and re-reading to be important practices of economists, and begins to fill the gap in the disciplinary literacy and economic education literatures providing direction for research and disciplinary literacy tools for educators

The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement

Every intellectual property (“IP”) right has its own definition of infringement. In this Article, we suggest that this diversity of legal rules is largely traceable to differences in the audience in IP cases. Patent, trademark, copyright, and design patent each focus on a different person as the fulcrum for evaluating IP infringement. That patent law, for example, focuses on an expert audience while trademark looks to a consumer audience explains many of the differences in how patent and trademark cases are decided. Expert audiences are likely to evaluate infringement based on the technical similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s works. Consumers, by contrast, are likely to pay more attention to market substitution and less attention to how things work under the hood. Understanding the different audiences in IP infringement is critical to understanding how the IP regimes variously define infringement. The focus on audience has normative as well as descriptive implications. Neither patent law, with its focus on experts and technical similarity, nor trademark law, with its market-based consumer focus, has it entirely correct. Rather, we suggest that as a general matter, infringement of an IP right should require both technical similarity and market substitution. An ideal IP regime should care about a defendant’s conduct only if that conduct actually causes injury to the plaintiff’s market and its work is sufficiently like the plaintiff’s that it is reasonable to give the plaintiff control over that work. Assessing infringement through the expert’s eyes ensures that the law prevents closely related works in the field while permitting sufficiently different contributions. The consumer vantage point ensures that we protect IP owners only when they have been harmed in the marketplace. IP owners who want to show infringement should have to demonstrate both that the defendant’s work is technically similar to their own from the expert’s vantage point and that the defendant’s use causes the plaintiff harm in the marketplace. Copyright law, which looks to both experts and consumers at various points in the infringement analysis, is on the right track

The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement

Every intellectual property (“IP”) right has its own definition of infringement. In this Article, we suggest that this diversity of legal rules is largely traceable to differences in the audience in IP cases. Patent, trademark, copyright, and design patent each focus on a different person as the fulcrum for evaluating IP infringement. That patent law, for example, focuses on an expert audience while trademark looks to a consumer audience explains many of the differences in how patent and trademark cases are decided. Expert audiences are likely to evaluate infringement based on the technical similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s works. Consumers, by contrast, are likely to pay more attention to market substitution and less attention to how things work under the hood. Understanding the different audiences in IP infringement is critical to understanding how the IP regimes variously define infringement. The focus on audience has normative as well as descriptive implications. Neither patent law, with its focus on experts and technical similarity, nor trademark law, with its market-based consumer focus, has it entirely correct. Rather, we suggest that as a general matter, infringement of an IP right should require both technical similarity and market substitution. An ideal IP regime should care about a defendant’s conduct only if that conduct actually causes injury to the plaintiff’s market and its work is sufficiently like the plaintiff’s that it is reasonable to give the plaintiff control over that work. Assessing infringement through the expert’s eyes ensures that the law prevents closely related works in the field while permitting sufficiently different contributions. The consumer vantage point ensures that we protect IP owners only when they have been harmed in the marketplace. IP owners who want to show infringement should have to demonstrate both that the defendant’s work is technically similar to their own from the expert’s vantage point and that the defendant’s use causes the plaintiff harm in the marketplace. Copyright law, which looks to both experts and consumers at various points in the infringement analysis, is on the right track

Atomistic Antitrust

Antitrust is atomistic: deliberately focused on trees, not forests. It pays attention to the consequences of individual acts alleged to be anticompetitive. That focus is misplaced. Companies and markets don\u27t focus on one particular act to the exclusion of all else. Business strategy emphasizes holistic, integrated planning. And market outcomes aren\u27t determined by a single act, but by the result of multiple acts by multiple parties in the overall context of the structure and characteristics of the market. The atomistic nature of modern antitrust law causes it to miss two important classes of potential competitive harms. First, the focus on individual acts, coupled with the preponderance of the evidence standard for proving a violation, means that antitrust can\u27t effectively deal with what we might call probabilistic competitive harm: multiple acts, any one of which might or might not harm competition. Second, atomistic antitrust tends to miss synergistic competitive harm: acts which are lawful when taken individually but which combine together in an anticompetitive way. Unfortunately, modern antitrust law has strayed too far down the atomistic pathway. Courts and agencies too often take a narrow, transaction-specific focus to challenged conduct. Instead of asking is the overall behavior of this company reducing competition in the market, they focus on a particular merger or challenged monopolistic practice in isolation. Courts and agencies need to move beyond atomistic antitrust and take a more holistic look at the circumstances and effects of an overall pattern of conduct. Our goal in this Article is to set out a framework for integrated antitrust, in which individual actions can be understood not just on their own but also as part of a comprehensive whole. Only by doing so can the legal system both return antitrust to its roots and bring antitrust into the modern context of the business decisions that courts must analyze today