Search results

This paper focuses on two related questions at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. First, under what circumstances must the holder of a patent or a copyright or the owner of a trade secret allow others to use that intellectual property? Second, under what circumstances can the holder of an intellectual property right use that right to make it difficult for another party to succeed in a related market? These questions have vexed antitrust and intellectual property scholars alike ever since the Federal Circuit ruled in 2000 that patent holders “may enforce the statutory right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the claimed invention free from liability under the antitrust laws,” a ruling that directly contradicted the Ninth Circuit ruling that antitrust liability could be imposed for almost identical conduct, depending on the motivations of the patent holder. The various proceedings in United States v. Microsoft only added fuel to the firestorm of controversy.After briefly retracing the jurisprudential path to see how this situation arose, we propose a solution that primarily involves a variation on the real property concept of adverse possession for the intellectual property space along with a slight extension of the Essential Facilities Doctrine for industries that exhibit network effects. We examine, both for firms with and without market power, how our proposal would resolve the situations presented by large fixed asset purchases, the introduction of entirely new products, and operating systems with network effects. We also demonstrate how our proposal could be applied in the European antitrust enforcement context.

Entrepreneurship education has had a remarkable evolution over time and the number of entrepreneurship textbooks has multiplied given the increased interest in entrepreneurship programs in higher education. Yet, studies that review the coverage of textbooks focusing on entrepreneurship are scarce. This study provides an inventory of entrepreneurship textbooks and the topics they cover as well as specific emerging topics they do not cover by analyzing the content of 57 textbooks. Our results suggest that most textbooks provide significant coverage of such topics as the nature of entrepreneurship, business plans, financing, marketing, and cases. Among emerging concepts, social media has been relatively well covered with increasing coverage in more recent textbooks, while business canvas, as an example of alternatives to conventional business plans, is rarely covered. Most textbooks have provided little coverage of such topics as sales, family business, women and minorities, as well as ethics and sustainability. This study not only reveals areas that are covered by existing textbooks but also themes that future textbooks and research could cover to address the challenges of future entrepreneurship education.

The authors review the call for cultural competence in psychiatric diagnosis and highlight the barrier of ‘monocultural ethnocentrism’ ‐ the tendency to presume that European‐American standards fit all cultural, racial and ethnic groups. They suggest that clinicians should: familiarise themselves with the history of racism in psychiatry; avoid stereotyping; appreciate the diversity within cultural, racial and ethnic groups; understand that individuals from various cultural, racial and ethnic groups may have had more traumatic experiences; and understand that individuals from the US and UK may have experiences with racism, some of which may cause mental illness. Finally the authors suggest strategies to increase cultural competence.

In 2010, approximately one-third of US children and adolescents were classified as at least overweight, with 17 percent classified as obese. In addition to other causes, the marketing and advertising of food directly to children was identified by a Task Force on Childhood Obesity as a contributing factor. As a result, food industries began to self-regulate. Consumer advocacy organizations developed guidelines for advertising products targeted to children. Cereal companies, such as General Mills (GM), struggled with whether or not to adopt those standards. GM began to change both marketing and product advertising in small ways. The changes were considered steps in the right direction but GM continued to be under scrutiny of advocacy groups. This case addresses the struggle of General Mills to make changes to product nutritional content and/or marketing and to address the societal concern about childhood obesity while also meeting responsibilities to consumers and shareholders.

The case was researched utilizing secondary data – all materials are readily available to the public. There is no disguise of any actual person or entity and no relationship between the authors and the organizations or individuals mentioned in the case. Frequent sources include the General Foods, Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative and Center for Science in the Public Interest web pages.

This case could be used at an undergraduate or graduate level. Legal Environment of Business, Business Ethics and any Marketing course.

The ethics frameworks in most business law or ethics textbooks may be used to discuss the dilemma identified in this case. This Instructor's Manual uses Hosmer's model. Hosmer (2008), The Ethics of Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 7th ed.