32,053 research outputs found
Michael Rodriguez interviews fiction writer Michael Kimball
No full textAuthor Michael Kimball talks about moving away from Michigan to become a successful writer, his education, the fiction reading series he has started in Baltimore, the life-story-on-postcard project, and his book "Dear everybody." Kimball is interviewed by Michigan State University Librarian Michael Rodriguez for the Michigan State University Libraries' Michigan Writers Series
Power Imbalance: A Case Study of British Action Against Bhutan in the Mid-1800’s
No full textGarrett Johnson; Political Science, History; [email protected].
Faculty mentor: Dr. Michael S. Givel; Political Science; [email protected]
Power Imbalance: A Case Study of British Action Against Bhutan in the Mid-1800’s
No full textGarrett Johnson; Political Science, History; [email protected].
Faculty mentor: Dr. Michael S. Givel; Political Science; [email protected]
Power Imbalance: A Case Study of British Action Against Bhutan in the Mid-1800’s
No full textGarrett Johnson; Political Science, History; [email protected].
Faculty mentor: Dr. Michael S. Givel; Political Science; [email protected]
Michael Rodriguez interviews author Gary Gildner
No full textAuthor Gary Gildner explains why he left his tenured teaching position to move to Idaho to became a full-time writer of poetry. Gildner talks about donating his personal papers to Michigan State University Libraries' Special Collections, his writing style and how he approaches writing. Gildner is interviewed by MSU Librarian Michael Rodriguez for the MSU Libraries' Michigan Writer Series. Held at the MSU Main Library
Dr. Michael Janis, Morehouse College, August 2011, August 2011
No full textThis video is a conversation with Dr. Michael Janis. Dr. Janis talks about his book, "Africa After Modernism: Transitions in Literature, Media and Philosophy". Yolanda Gilmore-Bivins, AUC Woodruff Library, is the interviewer
Why A "Large and Unjustified" Payment Threshold is Not Consistent with Actavis
No full textFTC v. Actavis was a landmark antitrust decision. In rejecting the “scope of the patent” test that had immunized settlements by which brand-name drug firms pay generic companies to delay entering the market (“exclusion payment settlements”), the Supreme Court made clear that such agreements “tend to have significant adverse effects on competition” and could violate the antitrust laws.
Some lower courts and defendants have sought to sow ambiguity in the post-Actavis caselaw by creating new thresholds and frameworks not articulated or envisioned by the Court. In particular, they have latched onto the discussion in Actavis of a “large and unjustified” payment. The district court in In re Loestrin 24 FE Antitrust Litigation, for example, imposed a framework that required analysis of (1) whether “there [is] a reverse payment” and (2) whether “that reverse payment is large and unjustified” before addressing (3) the rule of reason. The Loestrin court borrowed this framework from the district court in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. And defendants have contended, for example, that “Actavis requires a plaintiff challenging a reverse-payment settlement . . . to prove, as a threshold matter, that the . . . payment was both large and unjustified” and that “under Actavis, [plaintiffs] have to prove that [a] payment was ‘large’ (as well as unexplained).”
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 having little to do with 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
Product Hopping: A New Framework
No full textOne of the most misunderstood and anticompetitive business behaviors in today’s economy is “product hopping,” which occurs when a brand-name pharmaceutical company switches from one version of a drug to another. These switches, benign in appearance but not necessarily in effect, can significantly decrease consumer welfare, impairing competition from generic drugs to an extent that greatly exceeds any gains from the “improved” branded product. The antitrust analysis of product hopping is nuanced. It implicates the intersection of antitrust law, patent law, the Hatch-Waxman Act, and state drug product selection laws. In fact, the behavior is even more complex because it occurs in uniquely complicated markets characterized by doctors who choose the product but don’t pay for it, and consumers who buy the product but don’t choose it. It is thus unsurprising that courts have offered inconsistent approaches to product hopping. They have paid varying levels of attention to the regulatory structure, offered a simplistic analysis of consumer choice, adopted an underinclusive antitrust standard based on coercion, and focused on whether the brand firm removed the original drug from the market. Entering this morass, we offer a new framework that courts, government enforcers, plaintiffs, and manufacturers can employ to analyze product hopping. This rigorous and balanced framework is the first to incorporate the economic characteristics of the pharmaceutical industry. For starters, it defines a “product hop” to include only those instances in which the brand manufacturer (1) reformulates the product in a way that makes the generic non-substitutable and (2) encourages doctors to write prescriptions for the reformulated product rather than the original. The test also offers two safe harbors, which are more deferential than current caselaw, to ensure that the vast majority of reformulations will not be subject to antitrust scrutiny. The analysis then examines whether a brand’s product hop passes the “no-economic-sense” test. In other words, would the reformulation make economic sense for the brand if it did not have the effect of impairing generic competition? Merely introducing new products would pass the test. Encouraging doctors to write prescriptions for the reformulated rather than the original product—“cannibalizing” the brand’s own sales—might not. Imposing antitrust liability on behavior that does not make business sense other than through its impairment of generic competition offers a conservative approach and minimizes “false positives” in which courts erroneously find liability. Showing just how far the courts have veered from justified economic analysis, the test would recommend a different analysis than that used in each of the five product-hopping cases that have been litigated to date, and a different outcome in two of them. By carefully considering the regulatory environment, practicalities of prescription drug markets, manufacturers’ desire for clear-cut rules, and consumers’ needs for a rule that promotes price competition without deterring valued innovations, the framework promises to improve and standardize the antitrust analysis of product hopping
The Night Has a Thousand Eyes-Benjamin Weisman, Dorothy Wayne and Marilynn Garrett [Live Performance]
No full textMichale Phillip Price and Carl Dewhurst play the guitar duet The Night Has a Thousand Eyes-Benjamin Weisman, Dorothy Wayne and Marilynn Garrett. Recorded live on the 21/05/03 at the Red Belly Black Cafe in Canberra. The attached pdf is a review of the performance - title - Duo's imagination hits a high note by Michael Foster, 28 May 2003 The Canberra Time
Square Dancing with the Stars to Enhance Dynamic Hirschman Linkages?
No full textIn this Presidential Address, the author takes the reader on a reconnaissance of his life and time as a regional scientist. He points out scenery he found scintillating along the way, hoping that some may pick up the banner and chew on a few of the ideas for a while. He suggests a revisit to Albert O. Hirschman’s notion of key sectors and more empirical analysis related to Marcus Berliant’s and Masahisa Fujita’s notion of knowledge creation and transfer.Presidential Address, San Antonio, Texas, March 29, 2014 (53rd Meetings of the Southern Regional Science Association
- …
