Antitrust and Consumer Protection
Competition: Fall 2015, Vol 24, No. 2
Content
- Antitrust Treatment of State Licensing Boards In the Wake of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners V.F.T.C.
- Breaking a Monopoly: Vigilante Justice or the Sort of Innovative Approach We Celebrate?
- Capitalizing On Judicial Antitrust Experience
- Chair's Column
- Editor's Note
- Health Care Merger Analysis In the Era of Payment Reform
- Masthead
- Mobile Apps: Redefining the Virtual California Economy and the Laws That Govern It
- Off-label Use of the Cartwright Act: Will Cipro Require State Courts To Assess Federal Patent Validity In Pay-for-delay Cases?
- Pleading An Antitrust Conspiracy In a Post-twombly World
- Promoting Antitrust Compliance the Antitrust Division's Subtle Shift Regarding Corporate Compliance: a Step Toward Incentivizing More Robust Antitrust Compliance Efforts
- Putting Cipro Meat On Actavis Bones: a Case Study In Filling In the Legal Gaps
- Table of Contents
- The Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section
- The Magna Carta and the Sherman Act
- The Northern District of California Opens Its Doors To the World's Civil Antitrust Disputes
- What You See Isn't What You Get: How the Colgate Doctrine May Apply To the Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation
- A Tale of Two Statutes: Cipro, Edwards, and the Rule of Reason
A TALE OF TWO STATUTES: CIPRO, EDWARDS, AND THE RULE OF REASON
By Steven M. Perry and Sean F. Howell1
I. INTRODUCTION
This article tells the tale of two statutes that were enacted around the same time, that address many of the same issues, and that were interpreted for over one hundred years in the same way by the California courts. Recently, however, attempts have been made to tear apart these statutory neighbors. We speak, of course, of California’s two antitrust statutes: the Cartwright Act, enacted in 1907, and Business & Professions Code section 16600, enacted in 1872.
The operative language of each of these statutes is set out below: