Skip to main content
William H. Page

William H. Page

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

Emeritus Professor of Law

(352) 273-0929

page@law.ufl.edu

CV

SSRN

William H. Page

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

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)





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]