George Mason University School Research Articles

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission's Digital Platforms Inquiry, Preliminary Report

This Comment is submitted to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) for consideration in relation to its Digital Platforms Inquiry, Preliminary Report (2018). We detail several fundamental methodological shortcomings and analytical gaps in the Preliminary Report, which ultimately do not support the recommendations considered for implementation. The GAI Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy.

Student Excel! Program: Applying Structure and Vision to Clinical Learning Excellence

George Mason University School of Nursing has tried a variety of off-the-shelf commercial tracking products to collect, manage and communicate data associated with student clinical rotations. The products were each eventually removed from use because they did not meet the specific needs of either the faculty or students. Mason has developed an Excel-based clinical tracking program that facilitates rapid and accurate communication of the clinical experience and provides the flexibility to adapt across academic programs–at no cost to the students. This article describes the “Student Excel!” journal that was developed by Mason, how it is used by the School of Nursing and Health Informatics Program, response from students, and future implications.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Japan Fair Trade Commission's Consultation on the Administrative Surcharge System

This comment is submitted in response to the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s request for comments on its Summary of Issues Concerning the Modality of the Administrative Surcharge System. The Global Antitrust Institute's Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Proposed Revisions to the Guidelines of the Anti-Monopoly Commission of the State Council on Determining the Illegal Gains Generated from Monopoly Conduct and on Setting Fines

This comment is submitted in response to the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China’s public consultation on the Proposed Revisions to the Guidelines of the Anti-Monopoly Commission of the State Council on Determining the Illegal Gains Generated from Monopoly Conduct and on Setting Fines. The Global Antitrust Institute's Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotionns Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents

This comment is submitted in response to the India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion’s Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and Their Availability on FRAND Terms.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Proposed Revisions to the People's Republic of China Anti-Unfair Competition Law

This comment is submitted in response to the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China’s public consultation on the draft revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL). We submit this comment based upon our extensive experience and expertise in antitrust law and economics.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the National Development and Reform Commission's Draft Anti-Monopoly Guideline on Intellectual Property Abuse

This comment is submitted to China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) by the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University School of Law in response to the NDRC's Draft Anti-Monopoly Guideline on Intellectual Property Abuse. This is the third comment submitted by the GAI to the NDRC on its Draft AML-IP Guidelines. All three of China’s AML agencies are drafting separate guidelines to submit to the State Council of the PRC for consideration. The final guidelines will reportedly apply to all three AML agencies. Overall, we suggested that the NDRC adopt a more compliance-based approach that sets forth basic principles that would allow parties to self-advise. The current Draft Guideline instead sets forth a list of factors that the NDRC will consider when analyzing specific conduct. The Draft Guidelines do not explain the significance of each of the factors or how they will be weighed in the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) agencies’ overall decision-making process. This approach allows the AML agencies broad discretion in enforcement decision-making without providing the guidance stakeholders need to protect incentives to innovate and transfer technology that could be subject to AML jurisdiction. Lastly, we recommend that the NDRC include throughout the Guidelines examples similar to those found in the U.S. antitrust agencies’ 1995 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property to illustrate how the AML agencies will apply the basic principles. We also provide specific line-edit proposed edits on four provisions: general analysis, charging “unfairly high” royalties, discriminatory treatment, and injunctive relief.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights

This comment is submitted to China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) by the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University School of Law in response to the SAIC's consultation on its Anti-Monopoly Guidelines on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights. The GAI Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy, including how to analyze conduct involving standard-essential patents.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Korea Fair Trade Commission's Revised Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights

This comment is submitted to Korea's Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) by the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University School of Law in response to the KFTC's December 17, 2014 revisions to its Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights. The GAI Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy, including how to analyze conduct involving standard-essential patents.

Sharing the Educational Wealth: A Nursing and Health Informatics Program Collaboration.

Sharing the Educational Wealth:A Nursing and Health Informatics Program Collaboration Robin Brewster, DNP, RN, AGNP-BC (bio), Cathleen Scully, DNP, RN, AGNP-BC (bio), Anam Saeed, BS (bio), Shreyi Rimal Chhetri, BS (bio), and Laura Irigoyen, BS (bio) With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, health information technology became identified as a strategic focus for improving patient care and lowering health care costs.1 Health care needs are projected to require significant expansion of the informatics workforce.2 A CompTIA workforce study of 1,061 global information technology (IT) managers found that the majority of organizations felt that gaps in IT skill sets significantly affected their business operations.3 Educational programs must provide the training to meet those workforce needs, covering the full range of IT expertise and skill sets required to fill those identified gaps. These programs must be able to provide hands-on training in functioning health care sites to be effective3, and must include components of data quality management, confidentiality and security, and secondary uses of clinical data and information.4 Securing appropriate clinical sites is a challenge for every educational program, but becomes especially difficult when the targeted clinical expertise involves access to protected health information (PHI). George Mason University’s College of Health and Human Services has developed a unique and effective approach to providing clinical experiences for health care informatics technology (HIT) students by forming a collaboration between the School of Nursing and the Health Informatics program. This collaboration was piloted in the summer of 2015, and involved three undergraduate Health Informatics students working with the data manager of the Mason and Partner (MAP) clinics. The pilot placement of informatics interns into primary care clinics is an example of [End Page xiv] the transdisciplinary model of care that the Association of Clinicians for the Underserved advocates for optimal care to the underserved (ACU, clinicians.org). Not only were the interns taught the daily operations of a clinic system supported by federal, state, and private grant funds, they were also able to see the realities and challenges of using the data generated. They also profited when they transmitted what they had learned to others: There is no better “real world” experience for an intern than observing and teaching the other clinical students how to use an EHR system. Mason and Partner Clinics Since October 2013, the George Mason University School of Nursing, located in Fairfax County, Virginia, has successfully launched three academic nurse-managed health clinics in partnership with Fairfax County, Prince William County (Virginia), the local school systems, community centers, the local health department in Prince William County, and the Medical Reserve Corps in these two counties. The purpose of the MAP clinics is to provide a network of weekly health care clinics managed by nursing faculty with collaborative care provided by Mason nursing students and students from various other health-related disciplines. The clinics provide community-based health care to low-income, uninsured, immigrant, and other vulnerable populations using an interprofessional treatment team approach. The clinics have two main goals: To provide interprofessional practice sites in community-based settings for student clinical/field experiences, and to increase access to low-cost primary health care with an emphasis on education and referral to improve health care measures. These clinics are staffed by Mason nurse practitioner (NP) faculty (primary care and behavioral health), other faculty acting in support roles (pharmacy and education), and students (graduate and undergraduate) in clinical practicums for a variety of programs, including nursing, psychology, nutrition, and social work. Each MAP clinic provides care to approximately 25 patients each day. Over the course of the 200+ days the clinics have operated, they have provided health care services to over 3,800 unique patients, ranging from newborn to age 96 years, speaking 32 languages, and encompassing all race categories. This academic-community clinic requires unique IT setup and support. The IT setup and data management are performed by a single data manager and are designed to provide a mobile, self-contained IT solution (i.e., the computers and Internet access are transported to the site each clinic day and configured/scaled securely to support the specific services...

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Korea Fair Trade Commissionns Amendment to Its Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Korea Fair Trade Commissionns Amendment to Its Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the European Commissionns Public Consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms

This comment is submitted in response to the European Commission’s (EC’s) public consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries, Data, Cloud Computing, and the Collaborative Economy.The comment addresses: (1) concerns that the EC’s survey methodology and design is not conducive to generating reliable and policy-relevant data; (2) the economic analysis of platforms and multi-sided markets; (3) the dangers to competition and consumers of new ex ante regulation designed to regulate platforms, as opposed to relying upon existing European competition and consumer protection laws to address any potential anticompetitive effects or consumer harm arising from conduct by platform owners; and (4) the economic analysis of privacy and data security and its implications for new regulation.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Questionnaire for the Revision of Chinaas Anti-Monopoly Law

This comment is submitted by the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University School of Law in response to the Questionnaire on Revisions to China's Anti-Monopoly Law (AML). The GAI Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy. Topics covered in this response include competition objectives, vertical restraints, the definition of a dominant market position, the prohibition on purchasing products at “unfairly high” or buying products at “unfairly low” prices, refusing to deal, collective dominance, concentration of undertakings, abuse of administrative power, fines, disgorgement, and the application of the AML to matters involving intellectual property rights.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the National Development and Reform Commissionns Anti-Monopoly Guide on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights

This comment is submitted to China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) by the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University School of Law in response to the NDRC's Draft Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights Guideline. The GAI Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy, including how to analyze conduct involving standard-essential patents, as well as refusals to license, the essential facilities doctrine, discriminatory licensing, “unfairly high” pricing, bundling, cross-licensing, grantbacks, charging for expired patents, and the use of no-challenge clauses.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the National Development and Reform Commission's Questionnaire on Intellectual Property Misuse Antitrust Guidelines

This comment is submitted to China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) by the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University School of Law in response to the NDRC's Questionnaire on Intellectual Property Misuse Antitrust Guidelines. The GAI Competition Advocacy Program provides a wide-range of recommendations to facilitate adoption of economically sound competition policy, including how to analyze conduct involving standard-essential patents and non-practicing entities.

The Elusive Goal of Eliminating Global Hunger: Progress and Challenge—Opening Remarks for the Summit on Global Food Security and Health at George Mason University's School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, October 16th, 2014

World Medical & Health PolicyVolume 7, Issue 3 p. 298-299 Commentary The Elusive Goal of Eliminating Global Hunger: Progress and Challenge—Opening Remarks for the Summit on Global Food Security and Health at George Mason University's School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, October 16th, 2014 Phil Thomas, Phil ThomasSearch for more papers by this author Phil Thomas, Phil ThomasSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 September 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.146Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume7, Issue3Special Issue: Global Food Security and HealthSeptember 2015Pages 298-299 RelatedInformation

Debriefing in peacemaking and conflict resolution practice: models of emergent learning and practitioner support

This paper examines four models of debriefing practices applied by the team of authors in settings working with conflict resolution and peacemaking practitioners. It examines the effectiveness of these methods in particular, and of the practice of debriefing as a reflective tool in the context of peacemaking practice. All research was conducted as part of an Applied Practice and Theory team, under the supervision of Dr. Susan Allen, at George Mason University's School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Keynote Address: Is There a George Mason School of Law and Economics?

This article is the edited transcript of remarks provided in November 2013 on the occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the George Mason Law and Economics Center and the 10th Anniversary of the founding of the George Mason Journal of Law, Economics & Policy. The title of the conference was “The Unique Contributions of Armen Alchian, Robert Bork, and James Buchanan to the George Mason University School of Law.” In it I pose the question: “Is there a George Mason School of Law and Economics?” and I answer in the affirmative. I argue that the George Mason tradition of law and economics is a synthesis of multiple complementary schools of law and economics - Austrian, Chicago, UCLA, Virginia, and Washington - focused on spontaneous order, private ordering, dynamic market processes, and property rights. Given the subject of the conference, these remarks focus specifically on UCLA (Alchian), Chicago (Bork), and Virginia (Buchanan), but are not meant to discount the equally important influences of these complementary traditions.

Health, Homelessness, and Poverty: A Way Forward

Health, Homelessness, and Poverty: A Way Forward

A Judicious Solution: The Criminal Law Committee Draft Redefinition of the 'Loss' Concept in Economic Crime Sentencing

This Article is one of a group of papers published in connection with the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Third Symposium On Crime and Punishment in the United States: Federal Sentencing Policy for Economic Crimes and New Technology Offenses, hosted by George Mason University School of Law in October 2000. Economic crime defendants comprise over one-fifth of all offenders convicted and sentenced in federal courts. On April 6, 2001, the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved a group of amendments to guidelines governing the sentencing of economic crimes that will go into effect absent a congressional veto on November 1, 2001. These measures, collectively known as the economic crime package, are the culmination of some six years of deliberations by both the Conaboy and Murphy Sentencing Commissions working together with interested outside groups such as the defense bar, the Justice Department, probation officers, and the Criminal Law Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The package contains three basic components. First, the now-separate theft and fraud guidelines, Sections 2B1.1 and 2F1.1, will be consolidated into a single guideline. Second, the loss table in the consolidated guideline will be different from the current theft and fraud loss tables. Third, the troublesome concept of loss, the linchpin of economic crime sentencing under the Guidelines, is redefined. The Criminal Law Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference (CLC) was a particularly influential participant in the debate over the economic crime package. In order to assist the Sentencing Commission in its deliberations, the CLC submitted to the Commission its own economic crime sentencing reform proposal. The judges recommended: (1) that the theft and fraud guidelines be consolidated; (2) that the loss table be simplified by reducing the number of its levels, and modified by decreasing sentences for some low-loss offenders while increasing sentences for some high-loss offenders; and (3) that loss be redefined. Most importantly, the CLC went beyond general recommendations and transmitted to the Sentencing Commission a specific proposal for a new loss table and draft language for a redefinition of loss. The purpose of this Article is three-fold. First, it explains the need for consolidation of the theft and fraud guidelines and for a revised definition of loss. Second, it introduces the CLC's proposed loss definition and explains, in detail, the reasoning behind the drafting choices made by the judges of the CLC when preparing this proposed new definition. Third, where appropriate, it addresses differences between the CLC proposal and other draft definitions that put forward by Commission staff and other participants in the reform process. The Article is written by the academic advisor to the CLC during the economic crime debate. It is of significance to judges and federal criminal practitioners because the majority of the substantive provisions of the CLC loss proposal were included in the language adopted by the Sentencing Commission. Thus, the CLC proposal and the thinking behind it constitute an important element of the legislative history of new sentencing rules affecting more than 11,000 federal defendants annually.