<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FTC Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement Analysis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812</link>
	<description>News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:26:52 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Perry</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/812/comment-page-1#comment-8954</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Perry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">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-page-1#comment-8949</link>
		<dc:creator>David Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">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&#039;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-page-1#comment-8947</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Perry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">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 &quot;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.&quot;  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>
