Antitrust Policy and Joint Research and Development Ventures: Hearing Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Ninety-eighth Congress, First Session, November 3, 1983U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984 - 250 lappuses |
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
ability American analysis anticompetitive Antitrust Division antitrust laws attorney basic BAXTER benefits bioreactors biotechnology Chemical Committee competition competitors conduct CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Control Data Control Data Corporation cooperative R&D cooperative research copyright misuse Corporation costs courts Department of Justice deterrent development ventures economic effect efficient enforcement example exploitation firms foreign important incentives increase industrial policy Innovation Act intellectual property laws intellectual property licensing intellectual property owner invest in R&D involved Japan Japanese Government joint R&D ventures joint research Justice Department LACEY legislation LIBRARY OF CONGRESS manufacturing market share merger misuse doctrine MITI MITI's participants patent and copyright potential prepared statement problems process patent procompetitive Productivity and Innovation programs projects R&D efforts R&D joint ventures Representative LUNGREN require research and development Research Association result risk rule of reason Saxonhouse significant subsidies supra note threat treble damages uncertainty United
Populāri fragmenti
124. lappuse - As a consequence, in order to exercise the right to exclude others from exploiting an invention, the patentee need not have exercised its natural right to itself make, use, or sell the invention.5 A patent grants to the patentee the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented invention throughout the United States...
168. lappuse - Before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology of the House Committee on Science and Technology on Consortia R&D September 11, 1979 Mr.
171. lappuse - In the few minutes available to me this morning, I would like to address two questions: First, why is IGA seeking legislative relief? And second, what kind of relief do we seek? Before going to the first question, let me briefly describe the Independent Grocers
128. lappuse - As a first approximation, the Department will hypothesize a price increase of five percent and ask how many firms would be likely to change to the production and sale of the relevant product within six months.
13. lappuse - San Francisco antitrust lawyer Joseph M. Alioto did write to the chief executives of the companies that were about to form MCC: "In my opinion, your contemplated conduct is an unequivocal combination in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States." But the threat did not deter MCC'S co-owners and, for the time being at least, the Justice Department has allowed the MCC plan to stand. To run the new corporation, MCC'S directors chose retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, former director of the...
217. lappuse - unreasonable restraint of trade' as used in this Act shall mean such business activities, by which entrepreneurs by contract, agreement, or any other concerted activities mutually restrict or conduct their business activities in such a manner as to fix, maintain, or enhance prices; or to limit production, technology, products, facilities, or customers or suppliers, thereby causing, contrary to the public interest, a substantial restraint of competition in any particular field of trade.
123. lappuse - ... the other regarding underlying conditions germane to the trade, and the second party cannot achieve information parity except at great cost- -because he cannot rely on the first party to disclose the information in a fully candid manner.
130. lappuse - Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. (243 US 502 (1917)), Carbide Corp.
125. lappuse - United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 92 F. Supp. 947 (D. Mass. 1950) ; United States v.
122. lappuse - January 1, 1948 ... the Sherman Act ... the Clayton Act, and the . . . Federal Trade Commission Act . . . shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.