<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FTC Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement Analysis</title>
	<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812</link>
	<description>News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Perry</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812#comment-8954</link>
		<author>Michael Perry</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812#comment-8954</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Will do.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will do.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Fischer</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812#comment-8949</link>
		<author>David Fischer</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812#comment-8949</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Michael, your article sounds interesting; when it is published if you can send us a link (or a copy)?  I know we'd be interested.  On a more substantive level, I think you make an good point: avoid the 6ht Circuit (i.e., &lt;i&gt;Cardizem&lt;/i&gt;) and the settlement will be favorably viewed by the courts.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, your article sounds interesting; when it is published if you can send us a link (or a copy)?  I know we&#8217;d be interested.  On a more substantive level, I think you make an good point: avoid the 6ht Circuit (i.e., <i>Cardizem</i>) and the settlement will be favorably viewed by the courts.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Perry</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812#comment-8947</link>
		<author>Michael Perry</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812#comment-8947</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This shift is not surprising, given that the FTC Act allows Commission decisions to be reviewed "within any circuit where the method of competition or the act or practice in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business."  15 U.S.C. s 45.  The most permissive rule--first Schering-Plough and now Tamoxifen--is thus the effective rule, at least for the purposes of FTC enforcement.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Shameless plug: a note forthcoming in Volume 12 of the Stanford Journal of Law, Business, and Finance goes into much greater detail.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This shift is not surprising, given that the FTC Act allows Commission decisions to be reviewed &#8220;within any circuit where the method of competition or the act or practice in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business.&#8221;  15 U.S.C. s 45.  The most permissive rule&#8211;first Schering-Plough and now Tamoxifen&#8211;is thus the effective rule, at least for the purposes of FTC enforcement.</p>

<p>Shameless plug: a note forthcoming in Volume 12 of the Stanford Journal of Law, Business, and Finance goes into much greater detail.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
