Darren Bush is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center. Education background includes: B.A. (Economics), 1991, California State University, San Bernardino; Ph.D. (Economics), 1995, University of Utah; J.D., 1998, University of Utah. Professor Bush writes and lectures on antitrust law & economics and regulated and deregulating industries with particular focus on electricity markets. Professor Bush received his Ph.D. from the University of Utah, where he received a Teaching Fellowship, the Graduate Research Fellowship, and an award for outstanding teaching. While completing his J.D. at Utah, he consulted on issues regarding state deregulation of electric utilities, interned at the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, taught various economics courses, and received a Marriner S. Eccles Fellowship in Political Economy. After receiving his J.D., Professor Bush served as an Attorney General's Honor Program Trial Attorney at the Antitrust Division's Transportation, Energy, & Agriculture Section, where his primary focus was the investigation of mergers and anticompetitive conduct in wholesale and retail energy markets. In 2001 Professor Bush returned to Utah as a Visiting Associate Professor, where he taught antitrust, law & economics, business organizations, and professional responsibility and consulted on numerous antitrust matters. To contact: DBush@central.uh.edu
Response to Prof. Crump
Anyone who has taken a marketing course (or sold drugs in Baltimore) would realize the importance of rebranding. Merely restating the curriculum as Torts, Contracts, etc. would not be innovative.
Many of us teach those tools of the trade in a single course, but suffer from a branding problem. “The actual real day how you would do it in real life practice of antitrust law course” would have too long a name.
I’m not sure I agree that the “what-do-you-think-method” is bad. It can be a good tool if used properly. I use it to make students craft remedies for antitrust violations so that they can see the consequences of knee jerk reactions in terms of regulation or free market philosophy.
