{"id":28,"date":"2021-11-24T16:46:18","date_gmt":"2021-11-24T16:46:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/?page_id=28"},"modified":"2026-01-16T01:29:59","modified_gmt":"2026-01-16T01:29:59","slug":"articles-publications","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/richard-wolfram-esq\/articles-publications\/","title":{"rendered":"Articles & Publications"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

“Philadelphia National Bank<\/em> and the Continuing Role of Structural Presumptions in Merger Review,” Law.com (Dec. 19, 2025) [This is the second of two recent articles cautioning, inter alia<\/em>, about the hazards of political interference in government antitrust enforcement.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“DOJ Antitrust Takes a Populist Turn Under Gail Slater,” The National Law Journal (May 13, 2025)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Twelve Other Carmakers Move to Support Government Enforcement of Uniform Emissions Standards.  — Will the DOJ Investigate?”  Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Antitrust Blog, http:\/\/antitrustconnect<\/a>.com (Nov. 7, 2019) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The DOJ Investigates Car Manufacturers for ‘Collusion’ in their Framework Agreement with California on Gas Mileage and Emissions Standards:  Sounding the Depths of Prosecutorial Discretion on Anticompetitive Collusion as Distinguished from Procompetitive Collaboration,” Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Antitrust Blog, http:\/\/antitrustconnect<\/a>.com (Oct. 15, 2019)?; Also available at the e-Competition Bulletin of Concurrences<\/em>:  https:\/\/www.concurrences.com\/en\/bulletin\/news-issues\/october-2019\/the-us-doj-opens-an-investigation-of-four-car-manufacturers-for-possible<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

‘Practicing before the Agencies’ (compendium of chapters on\nvarious aspects of antitrust advocacy before the DOJ and FTC), co-editor,\nWolters Kluwer Law & Business online (2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“In re LIBOR:  More LIght Please!<\/em> — Questions and Observations as the Decision Dismissing\nAntitrust Claims for Lack of Antitrust Inujry Now Faces Appellate Review,”\nWolters Kluwer Law & Business, Antitrust Blog, http:\/\/antitrustconnect<\/a>.com (Jan. 28, 2015) here<\/a> and article (59\npages) here<\/a>. \n(Republished by Competition Policy International in monthly selection of\n‘Blog o’ Blogs, Feb. 17, 2015, https:\/\/www.competitionpolicyinternational.com<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“A Legal Rationale for Liability Under Section 2 of the\nSherman Act for Patent ‘Hold-up’ by Patent Assertion Entities with Respect to\nStandard Essential Patents,” Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Antitrust\nBlog, http:\/\/antitrustconnect.com<\/a> (May 8, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“‘Most Favored Nations’ Clauses under the Spotlight:  U.S. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan<\/em> — When Might Otherwise Competitively Neutral or Procompetitive MFN Clauses Violate the Antitrust Laws?”, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Antitrust Blog, http:\/\/antitrustconnect.com<\/a> (Jan. 6, 2011) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines: \nAn Rx for Better Quality, an Opportunity for Exclusionary Conduct Under the\nAntitrust Laws, or a Little of Both,”<\/a> Connections<\/em> (American\nHealth Lawyers<\/a> Association)\n(Aug. 2010) (with M. Mattioli)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Down the rabbit hole with Rambus<\/em>,”<\/a> <\/em>Gobal Competition Review<\/em> (July 2009)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  \u201c\u2019Analyze This!\u2019  Deconstructing Rambus<\/em> Following the Supreme Court\u2019s Denial of Certiorari \u2013 The Mechanics of How the D.C. Circuit\u2019s Decision \u2018Jumped the Tracks\u2019,\u201d Commentary, American Antitrust Institute (available at<\/em> http:\/\/www.antittrustinstitute.org\/Archives\/wolframrambus.ashx<\/a>) (April 27, 2009)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cConnecticut Attorney General Investigation and Settlement Highlights Possible Applicability of Antitrust Standard Setting Law to the Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines,\u201d<\/a> Antitrust <\/em>Health Care<\/em><\/a> Chronicle<\/em> (Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Committee, ABA Antitrust Section) (Nov. 2008); Health Lawyers Weekly<\/em>, Vol. VI, Issue 46 (American Health Lawyers Association) (Dec. 2008) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRambus v. Federal Trade Commission<\/em>:  It\u2019s Not Over Until It\u2019s Over\u2019,\u201d Global Competition Review<\/em> (online) May 20, 2008 (with David Balto)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201c\u2019Connection restored\u2019:  Broadcom v. Qualcomm<\/em> appellate reversal on FRAND licensing obligation for wireless technology standard brings case back into line with mainstream antitrust precedent\u201d (in materials for \u201cStandards Bodies & Patent Pools,\u201d Law Seminars International conference) (Oct. 10, 2007)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2019Can you hear us now?\u2019 \u2013 Did the Rambus<\/em> decision fall on deaf ears?\u201d Global Competition Review<\/em> (Dec. 2006 \u2013 Jan. 2007)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDevelopments:  Dentsply<\/em> \u2013 Monopolization Enforcement with Teeth,\u201d Antitrust<\/em> (Summer 2005) (with Ron Davis)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201cThe Antitrust Risks of Unilateral Conduct in Standard Setting, In the Light of the FTC\u2019s Case Against Rambus Inc.,\u201d<\/a> The Antitrust Bulletin<\/em> (Fall 2004) (with Michael Naughton)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cU.S. Private Antitrust Litigation\u201d (in \u201cGetting the Deal Through:  Private Antitrust Litigation 2004,\u201d Global Competition Review<\/em>) (Oct. 2003)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHatch-Waxman and Generic Entry \u2013 Pharmaceuticals on the Antitrust Radar\u201d (in course materials for June 2003 ABA\/Stanford Conference on Antitrust in the Technology Economy) (May 2003)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMergers and Acquisitions:  U.S. Government Antitrust Analysis and Enforcement \u2013 Focus on the Pharmaceutical Industry\u201d (in course materials for June 2003 ABA\/Stanford Conference on Antitrust in the Technology Economy) (May 2003)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe FTC\u2019s Use of Disgorgement in Antitrust Actions Threatens to Undermine the Efficient Enforcement of Federal Antitrust Law,\u201d The Antitrust Source<\/em> (ABA Antitrust Section online magazine) (Sept. 2002 (with David Park)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe FTC\u2019s Use of Disgorgement in Antitrust Actions \u2013 Origins and Implications\u201d (published in course materials for 50th<\/sup> Annual Spring Meeting, ABA, Antitrust Section)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMergers and Acquisitions:  United States Government Antitrust Analysis and Enforcement\u201d (in General Counsel Conference book, Law Journal\/Seminars Press, June  2000, -01, -02), (in Tulane Law School<\/a> Continuing Legal Education<\/a>, Feb. 2001)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPremerger Review:  Making the Case for Efficiencies . . . to a Possibly More Receptive Audience:  Lessons from the Blocked Heinz\/Beech Nut Merger,\u201d Antitrust <\/em>Counselor<\/em><\/a> magazine (March 2002)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cContemporary Antitrust Federalism:  Cluster Bombs or Rough Justice?\u201d (chapter in Antitrust Law in New York State<\/em>, 2d ed.) (New York State Bar Association<\/a>, 2002)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMergers and Acquisitions:  U.S. Government Antitrust Enforcement and Analysis\u201d (in Annual  Antitrust  Law  Institute seminar book,  Practicing Law Institute, 1996, -97, -98, -99, 2000 and 2001)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTying and Exclusive Dealing\u201d (in Distribution and Dealer Termination seminar book, Law Journal\/Seminars Press, 1995, -96, -97, -98, -99, 2000 and 2001)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cResale Price Maintenance:  Review and Analysis of the Law and Recent Developments\u201d (in Distribution and Dealer Termination seminar book, Law Journal\/Seminars Press, 1996, -97, -98, -99, 2000 and 2001)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cQ and A on Territorial and Customer Restraints\u201d (in Distribution and Dealer Termination seminar book, Law Journal\/Seminars Press, 1997, -98, -99, 2000 and 2001)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEntering European Innovation Markets:  Antitrust Implications of Innovation Markets and Intellectual Property Licensing \u2013 A U.S. Perspective,\u201d presented at conference<\/a> co-sponsored by the University of Lund and IDEON, Lund, Sweden, Feb. 3-4, 2000<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPerspectives on Healthcare<\/a> Antitrust:  Recent Hospital Merger Enforcement; Retrospective on FTC Enforcement Actions, 1988-92\u201d (in conference book for American Health Lawyers Association \u2014 \u201cAntitrust in the Healthcare Field,\u201d Feb. 17, 2000)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRefusals to Deal and Exclusionary Access:  Issues Common to Joint Ventures, Networks and Standard Setting\u201d (in conference book for \u201cCutting Edge Antitrust,\u201d Law Seminars International, Feb. 17, 2000)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAu del\u00e0 de l\u2019affaire Microsoft, la l\u00e9gislation antitrust am\u00e9ricaine\u201d (two-part article), Les Echos<\/em> (French business daily), April 13-14, 1999<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDOJ and FTC Antitrust Enforcement \u2013 Review and Analysis,\u201d Antitrust Report<\/em>, July 1998 (Matthew Bender)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commentary:  The Role of Economists in Antitrust Law (Global Competition Review <\/em>(U.K.), June\/July 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAntitrust, Intellectual Property, Standards and Interoperability\u201d (in Annual \u201cIntellectual Property Antitrust\u201d seminar book, PLI, June 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDistribution and Dealer Termination\u201d (National Alcohol Beverage Control Association Conference, March 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRestraints on Access:  Antitrust and Intellectual Property Licensing Issues Concerning Standards and Networks\u201d (in Corporate Counsel Intellectual Property Institute course book, January 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commentary:  \u201cU.S. Antitrust Law Today\u201d (in An International Who\u2019s Who of Competition Lawyers<\/em>, Law Business Research, 1997 and 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAntitrust in the International Setting,\u201d (Ohio CLE Annual Antitrust Institute: \u201cGovernment Criminal Investigations in the 90s,\u201d Nov. 1997; selected for publication in Corporate Counsel Resource Journal:  Corporate Toolbox for Global Business<\/em>, Ohio CLE)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cU.S. Fax Paper Case Sets Extraterritorial Precedent\u201d (in Global Competition Review<\/em>,  June\/July 1997; also published in International Legal Strategy<\/em>, Summer 1997 (Japanese); Wirtschaftsrechliche Beratung<\/em>, Fall 1997; Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales<\/em>, Fall 1997; Derecho de los Negocios<\/em>, Fall 1997)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTechnology Licensing:  The New European Community Technology Transfer Block Exemption\u201d (International Legal Strategy<\/em>, June 1996; Intellectual Property \u2013 Worldwide<\/em>, New York Law Publishing, July\/August 1997)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLicensing Issues:  Patent Misuse and Antitrust\u201d (American Intellectual Property Law Association conference book, Jan. 1997; Intellectual Property \u2013 Worldwide<\/em>, New York Law Publishing, May\/June 1997)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cKodak Loses Antitrust Jury Verdict:  New Antitrust Risks and How to Protect Against Them\u201d (International Legal Strategy<\/em>, Nov. 1995; Wirtschaftsrechliche Beratung<\/em>, Dec. 1996)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cJapanese Companies Enter Pleas, Agree to Cooperate in Major U.S. Criminal Antitrust Investigation:  How the Government Does It and Lessons to be Learned\u201d (International Legal Strategy<\/em>, Oct. 1996)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAntitrust Issues in Trademark Licensing\u201d (in International Trademark Association conference book, May 1996)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe 1995 Joint International Antitrust Guidelines \u2014 What They Mean for Foreign Companies\u201d (in International Legal Strategy<\/em>, April 1995; Wirtschaftsrechliche Beratung<\/em>, Dec. 1995; Derecho de los Negocios<\/em>, June 1996; Droit et pratique du commerce international<\/em>, 1996)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article on non-statutory labor exemption for antitrust (National Law Journal<\/em>, June 5, 1995)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAntitrust Federalism\u201d (chapter in Antitrust Law in New York State<\/em>) (New York State Bar Association, 1995)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TEACHING, CONFERENCES AND MEDIA COMMENTARY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\ufeff\ufeff\ufeffPresenter, \u201cAntitrust Issues and Developments\u201d \u2014 100-minute audio program (Celesq Programs in Partnership with Thomson Reuters\/West).  https:\/\/www.celesq.com\/programs\/view\/antitrust<\/a>\ufeff.  Nov. 21, 2019.  For access, possible CLE credit, contact RW.\ufeff<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panelist, NY State Bar 90-minute CLE program on parallel conduct, \u2018plus factors\u2019 and the summary judgment standard in antitrust conspiracy cases.  Feb. 27, 2019.  For more information and free video access, contact RW.\ufeff<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panelist and Organizer, Lawline \u2018hot topics\u2019 90-minute video CLE program (with two fellow antitrust attorneys, an antitrust economist and an IP attorney).  Feb. 21, 2019.  For more information and free video access, including possible CLE credit, contact RW.\ufeff<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panelist, \u201cFRAND determination and antitrust:  what is a fair FRAND,\u201d International League of Competition Law, Annual Conference, Kiev, Ukraine, Sept. 20, 2012  (Panel presentation on standard setting and licensing commitments to standard setting organizations under U.S. antitrust and intellectual property law)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest lecturer on antitrust and standard setting:  Fordham University School of Law, Seminar on Antitrust and Intellectual Property (Prof. M. Patterson), Nov. 14, 2012<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panelist, \u201cThree Faces of Frand:  The Evolving Understanding of Standards Essential Patents,\u201d ABA webinar, Science & Technology and Intellectual Property Sections, March 27, 2012<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-moderator\/panelist, \u201cThe Draft EU Guidelines on Standard Setting,\u201d Teleseminar, ABA Science & Technology and Antitrust Sections, Oct. 13, 2010, audio available at www.abanet.org\/scitech\/media\/tsc_1013.mp3<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conferee, \u201cStandards Summit,\u201d Yale Law School Information Society Project, Nov. 21, 2008 (\u2018summit\u2019 of selected professionals in IT, standard-setting and law convened to formulate \u2018specific, actionable reform recommendations to the global community of IT standards stakeholders\u2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panel moderator, \u201cStandard Setting & Patent Pools\u201d conference, Law Seminars International, Oct. 2-3, 2008, Arlington, Va.:  \u201cTips for Determining \u2018Reasonable\u2019 Royalties \u2013 The impact of recent case law on the economic analysis of determining a \u2018reasonable\u2019 royalty and the practical impact on licensing negotiations\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lectures on antitrust developments:  Trinity College, Spring 2001; Columbia University Business School, Spring 2001, -02, -03, -05<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interviews on French-language CBC Radio Canada weekly business broadcast, \u201cLes Affaires et la Vie\u201d:  \u201cMicrosoft Contre le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, May 23, 1998 (on U.S. monopolization law in context of Microsoft suit); \u201cStandard Oil et la Fusion Mobil-Exxon,\u201d Dec. 5, 1998; \u201cLa Fusion AOL\/Time Warner et les Effets sur le Contentieux Microsoft,\u201d Jan. 15, 2000;  Microsoft decision on liability, April 3, 2000 (evening news, Montreal); Microsoft decision on remedies, June 7, 2000 (evening news, Toronto); \u201cMicrosoft:  la D\u00e9cision de la Cour d\u2019Appel,\u201d June 30, 2001.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS “Philadelphia National Bank and the Continuing Role of Structural Presumptions in Merger Review,” Law.com (Dec. 19, 2025) [This is the second of two recent articles cautioning, inter alia, about the hazards of political interference in government antitrust enforcement.) “DOJ Antitrust Takes a Populist Turn Under Gail Slater,” The National Law Journal (May … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Articles & Publications”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":14,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-28","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/28","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/28\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":330,"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/28\/revisions\/330"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rwolframlex.com\/Test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}