Levin College of Law
Welcome to UF LAW

William H. Page

Emeritus Marshall M. Criser Eminent Scholar Chair in Electronic Communications and Administrative Law
Emeritus Professor of Law

CV

SSRN

bepress (SelectedWorks)

Phone:
(352) 273-0929

About

William Page is the Emeritus Marshall M. Criser Eminent Scholar in Electronic Communications and Administrative Law. He joined UF Law in 2001 and has taught antitrust law, civil procedure, and administrative law, and has offered seminars in antitrust litigation, class actions, and telecommunications law. He has published more than 60 articles including works on antitrust law, particularly in the areas of antitrust injury and standing, the state action doctrine, the Microsoft litigation, and the influence of the Chicago School. Most recently, his work has focused on the definition, pleading, and proof of agreement in litigation under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Page is the co-author of The Microsoft Case: Antitrust, High Technology, and Consumer Welfare (University of Chicago Press, 2007) with John Lopatka, and is a co-author of Kinter treatise on Federal Antitrust Law (LexisNexis). He earned his J.D. degree from the University of New Mexico and his LL.M. degree from the University of Chicago.

Education

LL.M., University of Chicago
J.D., University of New Mexico (summa cum laude)
B.A., Tulane University (cum laude)

Teaching & Scholarship

Antitrust, Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Telecommunications, Local Government, Intellectual Property, Constitutional Law, Energy Policy

Publications

Books

  • Kintner’s Federal Antitrust Law, 2020 Supplements (LexisNexis, 2020) (with Max Huffman & John Lopatka)
  • Kintner Federal Antitrust Law (with Joseph Bauer and John Lopatka) (LexisNexis, 3d ed., 2013)
  • Kintner’s Federal Antitrust Law (11 vols.) Annual Supplements (with Joseph Bauer and John Lopatka) (LexisNexis, 2010-12)
  • The Microsoft Case: Antitrust, High Technology, and Consumer Welfare (University of Chicago Press 2007; paperback and Kindle editions 2009) (with John Lopatka)
  • Kitner’s Federal Antitrust Law: Practices Prohibited by the Sherman Act (LexisNexis 2nd ED. 2002) (with Joseph Bauer)
  • Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues (William H. Page, ed., ABA Antitrust Section 1996)

Representative Law Reviews / Journals / Chapters

  • The Role of Efficiency Evidence in Price Fixing Litigation, 84 ANTITRUST L.J. (forthcoming 2022)
  • Rethinking Hybrid Restraints, in HERBERT HOVENKAMP: LIBER AMICORUM, 361 (Concurrences 2021) (with John E. Lopatka)
  • Direct Evidence of a Sherman Act Agreement, 83 ANTITRUST L.J. 347 (2020) [SSRN]
  • Parker v. Brown, The Eleventh Amendment, and Anticompetitive State Regulation, 60 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1465 (2019) [SSRN]
  • Pleading, Discovery, and Proof of Sherman Act Agreements: Harmonizing Twombly and Matsushita, 82 ANTITRUST L.J. 123 (2018) [SSRN]
  • Tacit Agreement Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 81 ANTITRUST L.J. 593 (2017)  [SSRN]
  • The Microsoft Case as a Political Trial, in POLITICAL TRIALS IN THEORY AND HISTORY 347 (Jens Meierhenrich & Devin Pendas, eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2017) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • Signaling and Agreement Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 2015 CONCURRENCES COMPETITION L.J. No. 3 [Link]
  • “Optimal Antitrust Penalties: A Synthesis,” in Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics (Daniel Sokol and Roger Blair, eds.) (2013) [SSRN]
  • “Antitrust, Innovation, and Product Design in Platform Markets: Microsoft and Intel,” (with Seldon J. Childers), in 78 Antitrust L.J. 363 (2012) [SSRN]
  • “Standard Oil and U.S. Steel: Predation and Collusion in the Law of Monopolization and Mergers,” 85 S. Cal. L. Rev. 657 (2012) [SSRN]
  • “A Neo-Chicago Approach to Concerted Action,” 78 Antitrust L.J. 173 (2012) [SSRN]
  • “Indirect Purchaser Suits After the Class Action Fairness Act: Reconciling Multilayer Interests in Antitrust Litigation,” in Collective Actions: Enhancing Access to Justice and Reconciling Multilayer Interests 275 (Stefan Wrbka, ed.) (Cambridge U. Press, 2012) [SSRN]
  • “Facilitating Practices and Concerted Action Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,” in Antitrust Law and Economics (Keith Hylton, ed., Edward Elgar, 2010) [SSRN]
  • “Microsoft and the Limits of Antitrust,” 6 J. Competition L.  & Econ. 33 (2010) [SSRN]
  • “Twombly and Communication: The Emerging Definition of Agreement Under the New Pleading Standards,” 5 J. Competition L.  & Econ. 439 (2009) [SSRN]
  • “The Gary Dinners and the Meaning of Concerted Action,” 62 SMU L. Rev. 597 (2009) [SSRN]
  • “Measuring Compliance with Compulsory Licensing Remedies in the American Microsoft Case,” 76 Antitrust L.J. 239 (2009) (with Seldon J. Childers) [SSRN]
  • “Mandatory Contracting Remedies in the American and European Microsoft Cases,” 75 Antitrust L.J. 787 (2008)
  • “Bargaining in the Shadow of the European Microsoft Decision: The Microsoft-Samba Protocol License,” 102 Nw. L. Rev. Colloquy 332 (2008) (with Seldon J. Childers) [SSRN]
  • “Software Development as an Antitrust Remedy: Lessons from the Enforcement of the Microsoft Communications Protocol Licensing Requirement,” 14 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. (2008) (with Seldon J. Childers) [SSRN]
  • “Communication And Concerted Action,” 37 Loyola U. Chi. L.J.(2007) [SSRN]
  • “The Ideological Origins and Evolution of Antitrust Law,” New Directions in Antitrust (ABA Antitrust Section, Wayne Dale Collins, Ed., 2007) [SSRN]
  • “Economic Authority and the Limits of Expertise in Antitrust Cases,” 90 Cornell L. Rev. 617 (2005) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • “Bargaining and Monopolization: In Search of the ‘Boundary of Section 2 Liability’ between Aspen and Trinko,” in 73 Antitrust L.J.(2005) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • “Class Certification in the Microsoft Indirect Purchaser Litigation ,” 1 J. Competition L. & Econ. 303 (2005) [SSRN]
  • “State Action and the Meaning of Agreement Under the Sherman Act: An Approach to Hybrid Restraints,” 20 Yale J. on Reg. 269 (2003) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • “‘Obvious’ Consumer Harm in Antitrust Policy: The Chicago School, the Post-Chicago School, and the Courts,” Post-Chicago Developments in Antitrust Law (Antonio Cucinotta, et al., eds., Edward Elgar Pub. Co. 2002) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • “Devising a Microsoft Remedy that Serves Consumers,” 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 691 (2001) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • “Monopolization, Innovation, and Consumer Welfare,” 69 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 367 (2001) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]
  • “Internet Regulation and Consumer Welfare: Innovation, Speculation, and Cable Bundling,” 52 Hastings L.J. 891 (2001) (with John Lopatka) [SSRN]

University of Florida Levin College of Law
309 Village Drive
PO Box 117620
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 273-0804
Text-Only Version

Tools

Website

Quick Links

The Florida Constitutional Law Endowment in memory of Justice Ben F. Overton was created by Judge Karen Miller in 2013. This fund supports lectures and presentations by Justices of the Florida Supreme Court at the Fredric G. Levin College of Law.

HISTORY

Justice Overton, who earned his B.S. in 1951 and his Juris Doctor in 1952 from the University of Florida, was the first merit appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. Throughout his career he was active in legal education and served as an Adjunct Professor at the Levin College of Law through December 2012, the month of his death. Although he resided at Oak Hammock at the University of Florida, a continuing care retirement community developed in cooperation with UF, he also considered the Florida Supreme Court “home.” Among the high points of his later years was hosting Justices of the Florida Supreme Court in Gainesville and taking his class to Tallahassee to hear oral arguments at the Florida Supreme Court.
Judge Miller, who earned her B.S. cum laude from New York University in 1974 and her Juris Doctor from New York Law School in 1977, served as Chief Administrative Law Judge of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, New York City’s business regulatory agency, before she retired to Oak Hammock at the University of Florida. Having accompanied Justice Overton on his excursions to Tallahassee and joined him in welcoming guests to Oak Hammock at the University of Florida, she created the endowment in memory of Justice Overton to ensure that the Levin College of Law continues to have the funding necessary to continue and enhance the interaction between its students and the Florida Supreme Court.

 

Judge Miller remembered the event that motivated the endowment.

 

Prior to a dinner at the home of Dean Robert Jerry and Lisa Jerry shortly after Justice Overton’s death, Justice Barbara Pariente and I were discussing a suitable memorial. Justice Pariente, who had been Justice Overton’s colleague on the Florida Supreme Court and who understood the importance to him of the interaction between his students and the Court, suggested the outline of what has become the Overton lectures. Dean Jerry, who has since retired, as has Dean Emeritus Jon Mills, who assumed responsibility for implementing the Overton lectures, were very supportive from the beginning. Since Dean Mills’ retirement, Professor Timothy McClendon, who assisted both Justice Overton and Dean Mills teaching Florida Constitutional Law and who co-authored the recent Florida Constitutional Law casebook, has continued the Overton lectures with the support of Interim Dean Merritt McAlister and CGR director, Professor Danaya Wright.

Justice Overton was a devoted jurist, educator, and ethical leader of the Florida legal profession. The Overton Lecture Series brings Florida Supreme Court Justices to the University of Florida, Levin College of Law, and serves to introduce students to the inner workings of the Court. CGR and the students of the College of Law extend our deepest gratitude to Judge Karen Miller for making the Overton Lectures possible in perpetuity.

You can watch an interview for the Florida Historical Society by Mary Adkins, professor emeritus of the UF Levin College of Law, with Justice Overton here.

Justice Overton was also interviewed for the Samuel Proctor Oral History Project and a transcript of his interview is available at the Smathers Library, and here.
Justice Overton sat on the Constitution Revision Commission of 1977-78 that proposed a right to privacy in the Florida Constitution. Although it failed as part of the Constitution Revision Commission recommendations, it passed in 1980 when proposed by the legislature. The bill was co-sponsored by our very own Jon Mills. The privacy provision prevailed by greater than 60%. Justice Overton then wrote a concurrence in a critical reproductive rights case in 1989 affirming that the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution included the right to obtain an abortion. That decision was overruled in Planned Parenthood of SW and Central Florida v. Florida. You can read about the role of Justice Overton, Jon Mills – director emeritus of CGR, and the history of the 1989 case here.