The idea that there is a tension between antitrust and the intellectual property laws is readily exaggerated. The tension that exists results mainly from our uncertainty about the optimal amount and scope of IP protection. In general, antitrust draws clearer lines than intellectual property law does, although one should not push the point too far. Antitrust policy as manifested in the courts has achieved a fair amount of consensus today. By contrast, deep uncertainty remains about fundamental questions concerning the socially optimal outcome of IP disputes. In addition, while the antitrust statutes are for the most part public regarding provisions interpreted by the courts, the IP laws have increasingly become special interest statutes less concerned with optimal IP coverage and more concerned with protection of the claims of particular interest groups. As a result, antitrust needs to take a bolder position in areas of potential conflict with IP law than it has in the past. This does not mean that we must revert to a post-New Deal regime in which the courts imagined threats from IP rights where none existed. However, it does entail that antitrust stop being so deferential in areas where threats to competition are real and the IP laws are ambiguous on the issue in question.

It is difficult to fully assess an agitated patient, and the complete psychiatric evaluation usually cannot be completed until the patient is calm enough to participate in a psychiatric interview. Nonetheless, emergency clinicians must perform an initial mental status screening to begin this process as soon as the agitated patient presents to an emergency service. For this reason, the psychiatric evaluation of the agitated patient can be thought of as a two-step process. First a brief evaluation must be aimed at determining the most likely cause of agitation, so as to guide preliminary interventions to calm the patient. Once the patient is calmed, more extensive psychiatric assessment can be completed. The goal of the emergency assessment of the psychiatric patient is not necessarily to obtain a definitive diagnosis. Rather, ascertaining a differential diagnosis, determining safety, and developing an appropriate treatment and disposition plan are the goals of the assessment. This article will summarize what components of the psychiatric assessment can and should be done at the time the agitated patient presents. The complete psychiatric evaluation of the patient whose agitation has been treated successfully is beyond the scope of this paper and Project BETA, but will be outlined briefly to give the reader an understanding of what a full psychiatric assessment would entail. Other issues related to the assessment of the agitated patient in the emergency setting will also be discussed. [West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(1):11–16.]