The Notre Dame Research Program on Law and Market Behavior (ND LAMB)
The Research Program on Law and Market Behavior at Notre Dame Law School (ND LAMB) is dedicated to promoting foundational research that seeks to influence the way scholars and policymakers think about a range of timely legal and policy issues at the intersection of law and market behavior. Specifically, ND LAMB explores interdisciplinary research across a number of interrelated legal fields including corporate governance, antitrust, intellectual property, property and contract law, and the legal regulation of individuals and firms in the market more generally. The Program draws extensively on relevant extra-legal research in empirical disciplines from psychology and economics to business and beyond. ND LAMB focuses on promoting original legal scholarship that emphasizes observational and experimental methods by organizing international conferences, panel discussions, and roundtable workshops; inviting distinguished speakers and visiting researchers; providing targeted research support to LAMB Faculty Fellows; and developing collaborations with relevant programs and institutes worldwide.
In the New York Times article Apple’s War on Samsung Has Google in Crossfire on March 30.
AP in many articles about software patents issues in the Apple-Samsung court case. on March 30.
In the Forbes article Lexmark May Be Liable For Attacking Printer-Cartridge Rivals, Supreme Court Says on March 25.
Professor Tor presents his work on behavioral antitrust to European academics and competition law practitioners and discusses its broader implications for legal policy at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich on March 12, 2014.
Professor Mark McKenna was quoted in several sources and articles on the trademark of Dumb Starbucks.
“Fair use” can protect parodies of copyright material, but a trademark such as the logo has different protections that Dumb Starbucks may well be violating, said Mark McKenna, a trademark law expert at the University of Notre Dame.
Like others, McKenna suspects the store is a publicity stunt — but for what, he could only guess. – AP via
Wed Jun 25, 2014
When: All Day
Location: Notre Dame London Law Centre, One Suffolk Street, London, SW1Y 4HG
Professor Mark McKenna (with Katherine Strandburg), has recently published, Progress and Competition in Design, Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 17, (2013). This article argues that applying patent-like doctrine to design makes sense only if a design patent system is premised on a patent-like conception of cumulative progress that permits patent examiners and courts to assess whether a novel design reflects a nonobvious step beyond the prior art. If there is a meaningful way to speak of such an inventive step in design, then design patent doctrine should be based on that conception. If nonobviousness has no sensible meaning in design, then a patent system cannot work for design. Read more
Dr. Avishalom Tor has authored a new article, Understanding Behavioral Antitrust, 92 TEXAS L. REV. 573-667 (2014). Behavioral antitrust—the application to antitrust analysis of empirical evidence of robust behavioral deviations from strict rationality—is increasingly popular and hotly debated by legal scholars and the enforcement agencies alike. In this Article, Professor Tor shows, however, that both proponents and opponents of behavioral antitrust frequently and fundamentally misconstrue its methodology, treating concrete empirical phenomena as if they were broad hypothetical assumptions. Because of this fundamental methodological error, scholars often make three classes of mistakes in behavioral antitrust analyses: first, they fail to appreciate the variability and heterogeneity of behavioral phenomena; second, they disregard the concrete ways in which markets, firms, and other institutions both facilitate and inhibit rational behavior by antitrust actors; and, third, they erroneously equate all deviations from standard rationality with harm to competition. After establishing the central role of rationality assumptions in present-day antitrust and reviewing illustrative behavioral analyses across the field—from horizontal and vertical restraints, through monopolization, to merger enforcement practices—Professor Tor examines the three classes of mistakes, their manifestation, and their consequences in antitrust scholarship. Besides providing guidance to future behavioral antitrust scholarship, Professor Tor’s Article concludes by discussing two sets of essential lessons that the behavioral approach already can offer to advance antitrust law and policy: one concerning the value of case-specific evidence in antitrust adjudication and enforcement, the other showing how antitrust law can and should account for systematic and predictable boundedly rational behavior that is neither constant nor uniform.View All Research