If you ever thought you were clever, now's the time to put your intellect to the test. Oxford University Press has recently launched a new periodical, the Journal of Competition Law & Economics. Published quarterly and edited by Damien Geradin and J. Gregory Sidak, it promises in-depth economic analyses of competition law, together with economic papers relevant to legal theory and practice.

This is what it feels like to be able to grasp economics and competition law ...

What does the new journal have for IP enthusiasts? Well, the editorial board includes Richard Posner (US Court of Appeals), Stephen Kon (SJ Berwin), Nick Green QC (Brick Court Chambers) and John Temple Lang (Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton) -- all being names that are least familiar to many members of the intellectual property community. Issue 1 was not for IP lawyers, though the IT fraternity would have appreciated the lengthy empirical analysis by Jerry A. Hausman and J. Gregory Sidak of the competitive impact of compulsory unbundling of telecoms services. This actually sets the IPKat thinking: since this is really much more of an economists' journal than a lawyers' one, it would be useful for lawyers if a table could be published in each issue, listing the principal legal measures and cases referred to. This will make sure that they don't miss the issues they want to read because they haven't grasped the terminology in which they're clothed.
HERE'S A SCARY ONE ... HERE'S A SCARY ONE ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.