200_Intro-352-2010 - Econ 352: Spring 2009...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 352: Spring 2009 200_Intro-352-2010.wpd page: 1 1 There is another civil standard written in to specific legislation. This is called “clear and convincing evidence,” this higher burden of proof is applied, for example, for termination of parental rights, but is not relevant to antitrust. Introduction I. What is I.O.? A. Study of imperfect markets, e.g., not perfect competition B. Generally with a policy emphasis 1. For private gain, same topic is Corporate Strategy in B. Schools 2. Antitrust, Regulation, etc. are some of the policies II. Antitrust Laws A. A little legal background 1. Criminal, Civil and Administrative Law a. Criminal (1) Burden of Proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (a) Recall, “innocent until proven guilty,” the burden of proof is on the prosecutor (b) For example, 98% level? 100%? Maybe the concept defies a percentage i) We know from the “Innocence Project,” there are errors made, convictions of innocents ii) Any juror can apply a 100% standard, or maybe a different standard. (c) Note, few antitrust cases go to jury trials, they are mostly bench trials (2) Results if the government is successful? (a) Fines (both for the firms and the individuals) are possible (b) Jail time for individuals is possible (c) May be enjoined from some acts (contempt of court for violating the injunction is possible) b. Civil (1) Burden of proof generally “preponderance of the evidence” 1 (a) E.g., 75%? i) Technically speaking, 51% would be the “preponderance” of the evidence a) At least in antitrust, my gut reaction is that the government’s burden is higher
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Econ 352: Spring 2009 200_Intro-352-2010.wpd page: 2 b) In many civil disputes (who is the rightful owner of some indivisible property), the 51% standard may be more applicable (b) The evidence is “weighed,” the distinction will become clear i) Evidence for and against is weighed, to see which “wins” (2) Results if government is successful? (a) Damages (3x actual damages for private plaintiffs, 1x for the U.S. Government) i) Will discuss “pass through” in more detail later, concept here (b) Success by the Government can be brought to court to show liability for a private plaintiff i) Successful private plaintiffs will also recover attorneys’ fees a) These tend to be huge in antitrust litigation (c) Injunctive relief i) A decree laying out behaviors prohibited in the future ii) Occasionally “structural” relief – e.g., splitting up the firm 1) e.g., Standard Oil (1911) 2) http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#1890-1911 3) Case citation shorthand – Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) c. Criminal and Civil Appeals (1) For U.S. DOJ cases, District Court for trial. Appeal is a “right” and goes to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the circuit in which the district is located (there are eleven circuits) (a) Before the last few decades, Antitrust District Court decisions could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, this is no
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/22/2010 for the course ECON 615 taught by Professor Rich during the Spring '10 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 19

200_Intro-352-2010 - Econ 352: Spring 2009...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online