Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 759 Results
Washington Post – ICLE Academic Affiliate M. Todd Henderson was quoted by The Washington Post in a story about Elon Musk’s attempt to renege on his . . .
Washington Post – ICLE Academic Affiliate M. Todd Henderson was quoted by The Washington Post in a story about Elon Musk’s attempt to renege on his deal to buy Twitter. You can read full story here.
“Musk doesn’t want to own Twitter, the banks don’t want to fund it. We’re in this weird ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation trying to force this guy to buy a company he doesn’t want to buy,” said M. Todd Henderson, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “Would you want to fund a guy to own a company that he doesn’t want to own?” …In that case, Musk would have to pay the cash part of the deal to Twitter’s investors, and then Twitter itself (now owned by him) would take on the debt itself to finish paying the old shareholders, according to Henderson. Musk could also go to court to force the banks to honor their agreement and loan him the money. If he didn’t want to do that, the court could even appoint a special representative to act in his stead and sue the banks, Henderson said.
“Musk doesn’t want to own Twitter, the banks don’t want to fund it. We’re in this weird ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation trying to force this guy to buy a company he doesn’t want to buy,” said M. Todd Henderson, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “Would you want to fund a guy to own a company that he doesn’t want to own?”
…In that case, Musk would have to pay the cash part of the deal to Twitter’s investors, and then Twitter itself (now owned by him) would take on the debt itself to finish paying the old shareholders, according to Henderson.
Musk could also go to court to force the banks to honor their agreement and loan him the money. If he didn’t want to do that, the court could even appoint a special representative to act in his stead and sue the banks, Henderson said.
Communications Daily – ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by Communications Daily in a story about the Supreme Court’s decision in . . .
Communications Daily – ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by Communications Daily in a story about the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA and the impact it could have on U.S. administrative law broadly. You can read full story (behind a subscriber firewall) here.
“Huge decision,” emailed Gus Hurwitz, professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law. “The big picture is that it shifts power from the executive back to the legislative, with a note from the Court reading ‘Dear Congress, do your damn job,'” he said. “Title II-based net neutrality rules are DOA,” he said. The opinion raises questions about how the FTC can use its unfair methods of competition (UMC) authority, he said: “The most useful gloss is probably that if an agency wants to reshape an important industry the authority and tools it uses need to be clearly delineated by Congress. That doesn’t bode well for the FTC using its UMC authority to go after big tech or longstanding and widespread business practices.”
Disruptive Competition Project – ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was cited by DisCo in a piece about the American Innovation and Competition . . .
Disruptive Competition Project – ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was cited by DisCo in a piece about the American Innovation and Competition Online Act and calls for platforms to provide mandated interoperability. You can read full story here.
As academics Peter Swire and Gus Hurwitz have explained, public-facing phone numbers are a far simpler portability use case than the complex, fast evolving, and differentiated data processing operations that are necessary for providing high tech products and services in the modern economy.
Congress has been considering legislation that would mark the most significant change to antitrust law in a generation. At issue is whether the bills would . . .
Congress has been considering legislation that would mark the most significant change to antitrust law in a generation. At issue is whether the bills would increase competition in digital markets, and what impacts may be anticipated. A recent comment letter from the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section, the world’s largest professional organization for antitrust and competition law and consumer protection, discussed one of those bills, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (S. 2992), at length in an effort to assist with ongoing consideration of the measure.
The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) hosted a May 19 digital event (video is embedded above) with two experts to discuss recent proposed legislative changes to current antitrust law, and S. 2992 in particular. Will such bills increase competition in digital markets and what consequences might they have? ICLE Founder and President Geoffrey A. Manne moderated the virtual panel and we joined by guests Sean Sullivan, an associate professor of law at the University of Iowa and member of the ABA Antitrust Law Section, and Elyse Dorsey, visiting scholar at the University of Virginia and adjunct professor at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
As deliberations on the legislation continue, we also recommend reading the following ICLE resources:
And finally, we offer this Twitter thread from ICLE Senior Scholar Lazar Radic, summarizing some of the key points made by the panelists during the May 19 event.
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988573267841024?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988575109136386?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988577344802818?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988579408392192?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988582004555777?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988584177213441?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988585959895040?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988587775926273?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988589789302795?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988591798362115?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988594021236741?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988596605038595?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988598383329280?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988605291339777?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988609351426050?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988613726183428?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988616284622850?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988618583105539?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988624484487168?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
https://twitter.com/laz_radic/status/1531988627475124224?s=20&t=xRoCphZhAU1NR769336lQQ
Overview The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank and research center based in Portland, OR, is looking for a . . .
The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank and research center based in Portland, OR, is looking for a full-time senior scholar to perform research, writing, and public outreach on a broad range of policy issues, focusing primarily on competition and antitrust-related issues.
The ideal candidate will have experience thinking and writing in the law & economics tradition of Armen Alchian, Harold Demsetz, Ronald Coase, Henry Manne, and James Buchanan. Law degree or graduate degree in economics required; previous experience in policy or academic position preferred.
Highly competitive salary, excellent benefits and a flexible schedule (including remote work). Work location is also flexible, although Washington, DC, or Portland, OR, is preferred. Some travel and public speaking are required.
ICLE scholars analyze issues ranging from competition policy and consumer protection, to intellectual property and licensing, trade, technology policy, data security and privacy, financial regulation, telecommunications, and platform regulation, as well as emerging legal and policy issues related to the sharing economy, the future of work, and the Internet of Things. This role would focus primarily on competition policy, antitrust, and related issues.
Increasingly, our work includes a focus on competition policy outside the U.S.: Among other things, we engage in research and analysis of competition, platform, and data regulation in the EU and UK, evolving competition policies in Asia, and in global debates about the effect of specific regulatory regimes on innovation and economic growth. Samples of our work can be found here.
Working collaboratively with the ICLE team and its network of affiliated academics, the senior scholar will produce high-quality work in a range of forms including academic research suitable for publication in respected journals, regulatory comments, amicus briefs, policy studies, op-eds, blog posts, and analyses targeted for general-interest audiences.
In addition to a working understanding of the substantive legal and economic issues and the legislative and regulatory processes around ICLE research priorities, the Senior Scholar will have a willingness to engage with policy “makers and shapers.” He/she will represent the organization to scholars, affiliates, donors, legislative staff, and the media at events, conferences, meetings, and on social media.
Candidates should have at least two years experience working within nonprofit organizations, academia, private firms, consultancies, trade associations, government, or similar entities, and should possess:
Follow this link to fill out the contact form. Please submit a cover letter, resume/CV, salary requirements, and relevant academic or policy writing sample.
If you have any questions, please reach out to Tony Reed, [email protected].
Job description PDF here
Very Serious – ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann was quoted in Josh Barro’s Very Serious newsletter in an item about development on barrier islands such as New . . .
Very Serious – ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann was quoted in Josh Barro’s Very Serious newsletter in an item about development on barrier islands such as New York’s Fire Island. You can read full newsletter (behind a subscriber firewall) here.
It’s funny that Gavin is the one who brings this up because RJ, who wrote in with a cultural question, happens to be an expert on public policy related to property insurance. I called up RJ to ask what he thinks about me owning a house on a barrier island. “In the long term, is it a good idea to live on a barrier island?” he asked back to me, rhetorically. “Probably not.” Barrier islands are always subject to erosion, storms and flooding; climate change and sea-level rise raise the possibility that many of them will be uninhabitable or submerged in 100 years, RJ noted. And my entirely serious retort to him was that I plan to be dead in 100 years.
It’s funny that Gavin is the one who brings this up because RJ, who wrote in with a cultural question, happens to be an expert on public policy related to property insurance. I called up RJ to ask what he thinks about me owning a house on a barrier island.
“In the long term, is it a good idea to live on a barrier island?” he asked back to me, rhetorically. “Probably not.”
Barrier islands are always subject to erosion, storms and flooding; climate change and sea-level rise raise the possibility that many of them will be uninhabitable or submerged in 100 years, RJ noted. And my entirely serious retort to him was that I plan to be dead in 100 years.
PORTLAND, Ore. (June 2, 2022)—Claims that the digital-advertising market is monopolized by one or two large players have been at the core both of legislation . . .
PORTLAND, Ore. (June 2, 2022)—Claims that the digital-advertising market is monopolized by one or two large players have been at the core both of legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Senate and an antitrust lawsuit filed by Texas and 17 other states. A new issue brief from the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), however, argues that critics take an exceedingly narrow view of the relevant market and fail to consider how advertisers and publishers can choose among competing forms of advertising, either online or offline.
Written by ICLE President Geoffrey Manne and Senior Scholars Eric Fruits and Lazar Radic, the brief notes that advertising technology, or “adtech,” bears none of the markers of a sector subject to monopoly, such as decreasing output and rising costs. Indeed, U.S. digital advertising grew by an average annual increase of 19% last decade, from $26 billion in 2010 to $152 billion in 2020, even as the Producer Price Index for Internet advertising sales declined by an annual average of 5% over the same period.
But digital advertising is just one kind of advertising, and advertising more generally is just one piece of a much larger group of marketing activities, the ICLE scholars note. They argue that the weight of evidence suggests that offline and online advertising represent a far more unified and integrated economically relevant market than is commonly assumed.
“What publishers sell to advertisers is access to consumers’ attention,” the ICLE scholars write. “While there is no dearth of advertising space, consumer attention is a finite and limited resource. If the same or similar consumers are variously to be found in each channel, all else being equal, there is every reason to expect advertisers to substitute between them, as well.”
The problem, the scholars note, is that the use of erroneously narrow market definitions to bring antitrust litigation, or as the basis of legislation that would impose new rules on market participants, is likely to raise the cost of business for advertisers, publishers, and intermediaries alike.
The full issue brief is here. Journalists interested in interviewing ICLE scholars about the law & economics of digital advertising should contact ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann at [email protected] or 908-265-5272.
PORTLAND, Ore. (May 19, 2022) — Legislation introduced today in the U.S. Senate to address alleged “conflicts of interest” in the digital-advertising market would instead . . .
PORTLAND, Ore. (May 19, 2022) — Legislation introduced today in the U.S. Senate to address alleged “conflicts of interest” in the digital-advertising market would instead threaten to halt decades of technological innovation that have benefited both advertisers and publishers, scholars with the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) warn.
Dubbed the Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act, the bill would impose a host of new duties on firms with more than $5 billion in digital-advertising revenue and mandate that firms with more than $20 billion in digital-advertising revenue may not participate in the market as any combination of a buy-side broker, sell-side broker, seller of digital-advertising space, and/or owner of a digital-advertising exchange.
The following statement may be attributed to ICLE President and Founder Geoffrey Manne:
“This legislation fundamentally misunderstands the role that intermediaries have played in creating a market that matches advertisers and websites automatically and that serves users the most relevant ads. This revolution in targeted advertising has allowed websites to monetize their products without having to charge user fees, allowing people to access entertaining and informative content for free. Platforms like digital-ad exchanges have incentive to balance costs and benefits to participants on all sides of the transaction. To the extent that they fail to do that efficiently or effectively, digital advertising is a market with low barriers to entry and new competitors emerge all the time. This legislation threatens to take us back to the old days of massive inefficiency in the advertising industry, and of consumers being inundated with marketing pitches for goods and services they would never want.”
We also recommend reading this recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by ICLE Academic Affiliate Todd Henderson and this blog post on Truth on the Market by Senior Scholar Eric Fruits. Journalists interested in interviewing ICLE scholars about the legislation or the law & economics of digital advertising should contact ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann at [email protected] or 908-265-5272.
IPWatchdog – ICLE Academic Affiliates Adam Mossoff and Jonathan Barnett were cited by IP Watchdog in a story about comments they submitted to the European Commission . . .
IPWatchdog – ICLE Academic Affiliates Adam Mossoff and Jonathan Barnett were cited by IP Watchdog in a story about comments they submitted to the European Commission regarding standard-essential patents. You can read full story here.
On May 9, a comment signed by a coalition of 25 law professors, economists and former U.S. government officials, and co-written by Adam Mossoff, Law Professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, and Jonathan Barnett, the Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, was submitted to the European Commission as a response to the EU governing body’s call for evidence on standard-essential patents. Like another recent response to the EU Commission by a group of scholars with the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), the Mossoff-Barnett comment attempts to dispel several misconceptions about the impact that SEPs have on the commercialization of new technologies, especially major communications technologies like 4G/LTE and WiFi that have been widely commercialized to the benefit of the vast majority of global consumers, thanks in large part to the patent rights that help to structure commercialization efforts.
