By: Sam Jacobson ‘26

Background on Trademarks 

A trademark is a type of intellectual property utilized by individuals, companies, or legal entities. It is defined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a word, phrase, design or a combination that “identifies your goods or services”, “distinguishes them from the goods or services of others”, and “indicates the source of your goods or services” [1].  Unlike more temporary types of intellectual property such as patents and copyrights, a trademark will persist in perpetuity until the owner ceases usage of the trademark. If the trademark is registered through federal registration, then federal protection will protect the trademark nationwide from being registered by others without permission

By: Cameron Hines ‘25

INTRODUCTION

In November 2018, approximately twenty thousand Google employees participated in a company-wide walkout to oppose the tech firm’s use of mandatory arbitration for sexual misconduct allegations. One of American history's most noteworthy protests against forced arbitration, this event was more significant than employees merely disagreeing with a company policy—it marked the peak of a decades-long battle between labor and management regarding disgruntled workers’ right to take their complaints to court.

By: Evan Hammer ‘24 

Introductions to Antitrust Law and Big Tech 

In 1890, Congress adopted the Sherman Antitrust Act, the first antitrust legislation in the United States outlawing restraint of trade and monopolization of industries involving interstate commerce. The Sherman Act prevents competing businesses from fixing market prices, segmenting markets, or rigging bids, which are all ‘per se’ violations of the act. In 1911, the Supreme Court decided in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. US  that the language used in the act doesn’t prohibit all attempts to restrain trade or monopolize, only those that are “unreasonable.1  This standard is known as the Rule of Reason and was the dominant governing principle in antitrust legislation for most of the 20th century.

By: Pranathi Charasala  ‘25

Introduction 

If the Suez Canal blockage of March 2021 reminded us of anything, it’s that the shipping industry is vital to global trade supply chain maintenance. Although the ship, Ever Given, was only stuck in the canal for six days, the effects of the event could be felt for weeks afterward, exposing the interconnectedness and vulnerability of the shipping industry to operations worldwide.1 However, even as the shipping industry proves its importance to the global economy, seafarers, dockworkers, and other maritime employees are often shoved out of sight through business practices such as flying a “Flag of Convenience” (FOC). 

By: Jacqueline Bickford ‘26
Since their invention 190 years ago, railroads have been instrumental to the growth of America. In decreasing cross-country travel time from months to weeks and cutting its cost to $150 from $1,000, it's hard to see the downfalls of rail travel at a time when it brought national unity and a flourishing economy. This rose-colored view towards railroads would continue until the 1960s, but it didn’t come without a price; millions of hectares of forests disappeared, previously untouched water and soil became contaminated, and undisturbed wildlife faced never-before-seen dangers. While it is true that railroads and their creation are destructive by nature, their alternatives– cars and planes– aren’t any better. With domestic flights and single passenger cars emitting 133 and 171 grams of CO2 per kilometer traveled, respectively, the 41 grams emitted from domestic rail seems like an eco-friendly alternative2. But a caveat to this seemingly sustainable mode of transportation is the rate at which these trains derail; in just 2022, 1,164 trains derailed across the country. This averages out to about three derailments per day3. Since rail transport is here to stay, the challenge lies in finding the cause of these derailments, which don’t always lie in structural or mechanical issues but rather in the enforcement of laws (or lack thereof) surrounding railways. Current environmental rail law is not doing enough to hold companies accountable, and thus hazardous chemicals continue to be transported irresponsibly, leading to derailments that have come at a massive cost to our environment with spillover effects on human health. 

By: Ram Orfanel ‘25

In May 2016, Rodrigo Roa Duterte was elected as the 16th President of the Philippines after promising to curb the spread of illegal drugs within the country. Claiming that the war “...would be bloody” [1] and that change would be felt within six months, Duterte won the 2016 Philippine National Elections with more than 16 million votes. Since Duterte’s inauguration in June 2016, casualties of the government’s war on drugs are estimated at  “...over 12,000 Filipinos…[majority of which are] urban poor” [2]. As a result, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda initiated a preliminary investigation in 2018 into the country’s war on drugs. This culminated in September 2021 when the ICC pre-trial chamber affirmed that sufficient evidence exists for a full investigation into potential crimes against humanity. Since then, high-ranking members of the Duterte administration have questioned the jurisdiction of the ICC, grounded on the principle of complementarity that governs admissible cases for the court.  

By: Kevin Kim ‘25

Introduction

As is the case with any industry, the pharmaceutical industry is regulated by laws seeking to balance rewarding producers for innovation and encouraging other producers to engage in competition with the original innovator. In this particular industry however, the nature of pharmaceutical products require an painstakingly extensive examination of more than 6 months by the Food & Drug Administration to ensure the safety of the new product for consumers upon entry into markets. This feature creates complications and an enormous amount of time required for those seeking to enter the market with similar products after the original producers’ patent expires. 

By: Derek Jiang ‘25

As Justice Harlan once wrote, the “constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours” and produces “a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity.” Grounded in the First Amendment, the freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our country and allows society to engage in robust debate over important issues in the great experiment that is democracy. However, no freedom is absolute, and this includes the freedom of speech. From the incitement of “imminent lawless action” to “falsely shouting fire in a theater,” the Court has long recognized that the First Amendment does not protect certain classes of unprotected speech., While it is generally agreed upon that there are some situations where speech can and must be curtailed, the precise limits of the First Amendment are not always so well-defined. One such case in the First Amendment’s “gray area”—⁠testing the limits of freedom of speech—is Snyder v. Phelps (2011). 

By: Evan Hammer ‘24

Millions of people watch professional sports every day, and most take for granted the immense impact that antitrust legislation has had on each league. This paper will explore how various court decisions have altered the MLB, NFL, and NBA, as well as examine the ways in which labor disputes have played a role in progressing leagues into the modern era. But before examining the legislation that has taken place in each league, I am going to briefly cover the rich history of antitrust and labor law in the United States. Antitrust law is analogous to anti-competition law, designed to preserve economic liberty by promoting competition among firms. Within a market, more competition generally leads to lower prices for consumers, and Congress has passed three acts that prevent firms from conspiring to raise prices.