Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 226 Results in Patents
TOTM Readers may recall we highlighted the Vizio v. Funai complaint about a year ago, in large part because it involved antitrust and standard setting issues. . . .
Readers may recall we highlighted the Vizio v. Funai complaint about a year ago, in large part because it involved antitrust and standard setting issues. The case involves allegations that Funai breached a FRAND commitment, and thus, is an important decision in the debate over the appropriate scope of Section 2 in cases involving alleged breach of obligations made in the standard setting context (a subject I’ve written on with Bruce Kobayashi here and here, with former student Aubrey Stuempfle here, and on my own in partial defense of the D.C. Circuit’s Rambus decision here ).
Read the full piece here.
TOTM As regular readers know, we’ve been following with (critical) interest the antitrust issues surrounding the seed industry in general and Monsanto in particular. See, for . . .
As regular readers know, we’ve been following with (critical) interest the antitrust issues surrounding the seed industry in general and Monsanto in particular. See, for example posts by me or Mike here, here and here.
TOTM A couple weeks ago, Geoff wrote concerning the DOJ’s misguided antitrust interest in Monsanto. With that in mind, I was very interested to see today’s . . .
A couple weeks ago, Geoff wrote concerning the DOJ’s misguided antitrust interest in Monsanto. With that in mind, I was very interested to see today’s announcement that Monsanto’s earnings and gross margins are significantly off for its fiscal first quarter. According to the Wall Street Journal report, Monsanto posted a loss for the quarter due to a 36% drop in sales and lower margins resulting from price decreases. Leading the drop, sales of the company’s Roundup and other herbicide products tumbled 63%!
Regulatory Comments Biotech seeds have become an enormously-valuable part of the food supply in the US and abroad. A substantial portion of soybeans, corn, cotton and other . . .
Biotech seeds have become an enormously-valuable part of the food supply in the US and abroad. A substantial portion of soybeans, corn, cotton and other agricultural products grown in the US are derived from genetically-modified seeds. The genetic traits that give these seeds their value—traits that confer resistance to herbicide and high yields, for example—are often developed by large agribusiness companies, with enormous research and development investments. The process is technologically-advanced, time- and money-intensive, a risky investment, and subject to various layers of regulation. The process of developing a new seed variety can take 15 years and require hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Regulations from the USDA, the FDA and the EPA can slow or halt the process, and international trade regulations (particularly from countries that ban or severely restrict importation of GMOs) complicate the control and the commercialization of the final products.
Read the full comments here.
TOTM Leading antitrust critic and abolitionist, Dominick Armentano, has a letter to the editor in the WSJ. The point of the letter to the editor is . . .
Leading antitrust critic and abolitionist, Dominick Armentano, has a letter to the editor in the WSJ. The point of the letter to the editor is rather specific: that FTC’s attack on Intel is no outlier in the historical context of antitrust enforcement, contrary to the WSJ’s description. To the contrary, Armentano argues that Intel is just another in a long line of misguided enforcement actions.
TOTM If you live outside the farm belt (or you’re not an antitrust junkie) you might have missed what is shaping up to be one of . . .
If you live outside the farm belt (or you’re not an antitrust junkie) you might have missed what is shaping up to be one of the biggest antitrust stories of the coming year: The set of antitrust accusations and actions against Monsanto for its alleged anticompetitive conduct in the biotech seed market.
TOTM So, AMD and Intel settled. Its a case we’ve covered here in significant detail. Terms haven’t been announced publicly. AAI has predictably argued that the . . .
So, AMD and Intel settled. Its a case we’ve covered here in significant detail. Terms haven’t been announced publicly. AAI has predictably argued that the settlement shouldn’t preclude further enforcement action from NY and the FTC. The NY Times suggests the same. They may be right, although Herb Hovenkamp, among others, has suggested that the settlement “has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails” of the FTC case.
TOTM One of the most significant challenges facing competition policy today is defining the appropriate role of antitrust law within the context of intellectual property right licensing by standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”).
One of the most significant challenges facing competition policy today is defining the appropriate role of antitrust law within the context of intellectual property right licensing by standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”). Many commentators believe it is necessary to apply the full force of the antitrust laws, and sometimes special rules that would increase the scope of antitrust, to the standard-setting process in order to adequately oversee what they perceive as a unique opportunity for anticompetitive behavior. Indeed, antitrust agencies both in the United States and around the world have expressed agreement with the notion that the standard setting process requires strong enforcement of antitrust liability rules in order to ensure efficient outcomes that benefit consumers. However, this view largely fails to consider the costs of antitrust. In particular, it fails to recognize the limits of antitrust when the marginal benefit of antitrust enforcement is slight and the potential for erroneous enforcement (“false positives”) and thus, the likelihood that procompetitive behavior will be deterred, is high. The Supreme Court itself has emphasized repeatedly that the scope of the antitrust laws should be responsive to such a cost-benefit analysis.
Scholarship "Innovation is critical to economic growth. While it is well understood that legal institutions play an important role in fostering an environment conducive to innovation and its commercialization, much less is known about the optimal design of specific institutions..."
“Innovation is critical to economic growth. While it is well understood that legal institutions play an important role in fostering an environment conducive to innovation and its commercialization, much less is known about the optimal design of specific institutions. Regulatory design decisions, and in particular competition policy and intellectual property regimes, can have profoundly positive or negative consequences for economic growth and welfare. However, the ratio of what is known to unknown with respect to the relationship between innovation, competition, and regulatory policy is staggeringly low. In addition to this uncertainty concerning the relationships between regulation, innovation, and economic growth, the process of innovation itself is not well understood.
The regulation of innovation and the optimal design of legal institutions in this environment of uncertainty are two of the most important policy challenges of the 21st century. The essays in this book approach this critical set of problems from an economic perspective, relying on the tools of microeconomics, quantitative analysis, and comparative institutional analysis to explore and begin to provide answers to the myriad challenges facing policymakers. Any legal regime, after all, must attempt to assess the tradeoffs associated with rules that will impact incentives to innovate, allocative efficiency, competition, and freedom of economic actors to commercialize the fruits of their innovative labors and foster economic growth.”
