Source: http://www.hannokaiser.com/lawschool/2017svat7/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:58:00+00:00

Document:
Note that this is an evolving syllabus, as we will discuss key issues of technology antitrust using current cases and materials. In other words, stuff on this website will change during the course of the semester.
U.S. v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2000). Excerpt. Yes, The Informant is based on that case.
Disruption via de novo entry as per se illegal antitrust violation?
Dan Wall & Hanno Kaiser, Brief of Economists as Amici Curiae in Support of Apple, Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in re U.S. v. Apple Inc. (2015).
Class 4: An in depth look at Algorithms and Collusion. New normal or smoke without fire?
Replace computers and algorithms with humans—does that change the analysis?
Are there “plus factors” akin to (e.g.) regular meetings?
Duty to encode “collusion avoidance” into commercial pricing algorithms?
What makes a firm dominant?
United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Excerpts. Super high-level summary.
What constitutes an abuse of a dominant position?
United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Finish reading the case. Excerpts. Super high-level summary.
Windows Media Player: Microsoft v. European Commission, Judgment of the Court of First Instance (9/17/2007). This is a long and rather tedious opinion. Read the excerpts from the Commission Decision posted on bSpace.
What are the (beneficial and detrimental) effects of these agreements on competitors, users, and developers?
“Closing an open system" v. "maintaining a closed system"
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992). Excerpts. (Here are some additional case notes).
Blizzard Entertainment v. Ceiling Fan Software, et al., 41 F.Supp.2d 1227 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Excerpts.
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D.Cal. 2008). Excerpts.
Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Excerpts.
Standard setting implies that competitors agree not to compete on certain technologies. Why is that legal?
Imagine a world without standards, e.g., power plugs, rail gauges, phone networks, the internet (TCP/IP), the world-wide web (HTTP), eurorack, etc.
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3rd. Cir. 2007). Excerpt.
Case C-170/13 Huawei v ZTE (European Court of Justice) (July 16, 2015) Please read the judgment of the court, which is the first document on the web page and then focus on the holding after para. 77.
Outline the mandatory elements of the offense, using "the grid"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.