Introduction

• Author: Roger D. Blair
• DOI: 10.1177/0003603X0805300102
• Published date: 01 March 2008
• Date: 01 March 2008
• Subject Matter: Symposium: The Economics of the Roberts Court

THE

ANTITRUST

BULLETIN:

Vol. 53, No.

l/Spring

2008 1

Introduction

BY

ROGER

D. BLAIR*

The composition of the Roberts

Court

is quite different from

that

of the

Rehnquist Court. Obviously, ChiefJustice Roberts

has

replaced the late

Chief Justice Rehnquist. But Justice

Sandra

Day

O'Connor's

replace--

ment

with

Justice

Samuel

Alito

was

very

important

in shifting the

Court

and

making

it more conservative. During the last

two

terms, the

Roberts

Court

has

had

an active antitrust agenda.

In

this Symposium,

we

pause

to

examine

how

economics

has

influenced

the

Roberts

Court. We

do

this by examining several Roberts

Court

decisions.

Bruce

Kobayashi

starts

off

by

addressing

the

Court's

decision

regarding

the

permissible inference of monopoly

power

from

the

exis-

tence of a

patent.'

Professor Kobayashi finds that

the

Court's

Illinois

Tool

Works

decision is

sound

as far as it went.

In

a

patent

tying case,

the

Court

held

that

antitrust

market

power

cannot be inferred from

the existence of a

patent

on

the

tying good. Now, a successful plaintiff

in a

patent

tying

suit

will

have

to

prove

the existence of

market

(or

monopoly)

power

in the tying good. The Court also rejected arebut-

table

presumption

of

market

power

from the existence of a

patent

on

*

Huber

Hurst

Professor,

Department

of Economics,

University

of

Florida.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Iwant to thank all of the authors for their timely submissions and

cooperation in this symposium.

Bruce H.

Kobayashi,

Spilled Ink or Economic Progress? The Supreme

Court's Decision in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, in this issue of The

Antitrust Bulletin.

©2008by

Federal

LegalPublications, Inc.