News
Archive

ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff was quoted by IPWatchdog in a story about intellectual-property rights being chosen as the topic for the 2024-2025 debate competition by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). You can read the full piece here.

“This is a clear indication that innovators and creators are succeeding in changing the public narrative about the role of IP rights in innovation economies and flourishing societies,” said Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University and a member of the board of directors of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU).

“I competed in debate when I was in high school,” continued Professor Mossoff, an innovation policy expert. “It’s an excellent way for students to learn evidence-based advocacy as opposed to the name-calling and junk science that have dominated discussions about IP. ­­There is overwhelming evidence that IP rights are a launch pad for growing innovation economies and creative cultures.”

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by the New York Times in a story about the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Apple. You can read the full thing here.

And federal prosecutors are explicitly connecting the Apple lawsuit to that earlier fight. “They’re really presenting this case as a successor to that: Microsoft 2.0,” said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

…Others say the Microsoft case’s legacy is less clear. Hurwitz told DealBook that the reality was more complicated. Netscape failed in part because a botched upgrade turned off users, while Microsoft missed out on the dawn of internet 2.0 services because of bad strategic decisions.

“In terms of actual industrial changes, I think the case yielded very little,” Hurwitz said.

…“That might open up opportunities for competitors,” Hurwitz said. But he added, “That’s not necessarily the best way of facilitating competition in the market.” 

ICLE research was cited by Americans for Tax Reform in a recent letter about the Credit Card Competition Act. You can read the full piece here.

The mandates in the bill are so costly that more than $75 billion in rewards that consumers receive every year would largely disappear. According to the International Center for Law & Economics, “86% of credit cardholders have active rewards cards, including 77% of cardholders with a household income of less than $50,000.” The disappearance of rewards would likely harm minority communities and small businesses.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by The New York Times in an item about the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Apple. You can read the full piece here.

But some experts think this lawsuit is a stretch. Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told DealBook that antitrust policy traditionally hasn’t focused on issues like porting consumer data to different platforms.

He added that while prosecutors were seeking to help some consumers — those who favor switching devices — the lawsuit could end up hurting others. Users of iOS “derive a lot of value from their closed ecosystem,” he said. “Apple users like the closed ecosystem and the benefits that confers on them.

ICLE President and Founder Geoffrey A. Manne was quoted by Fortune in a story about the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple. You can read the full piece here.

“They must know this case will be hard to win. Maybe they feel their best path to victory is creating a strong public atmosphere that Apple is not some noble, pro-consumer actor,” said Geoffrey Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law and Economics, a Portland-based nonprofit research center.

“A lot of these cases are about changing the public perception of these companies, which in turn deters the behavior.”

ICLE Senior Scholar Lazar Radic was quoted by The Drum in a story about the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Apple. You can read the full piece here.

But another concern about the case’s strength is raised by Lazar Radic, a professor of law and a senior scholar of competition policy at the International Center for Law & Economics. The case “seems slightly outdated,” Radic says.

In particular, he suggests that some of the issues raised by the plaintiffs appear to have been recently remedied. “One example is the cloud services complaint, which is accusing Apple of suppressing mobile cloud streaming services. Apple changed its policy on [cloud gaming services] earlier this year, to an extent that would address this [concern].”

…The DOJ, in its complaint, would seem to be grasping at straws on this front, Radic suggests. “The DOJ’s complaint is that the color of the text bubbles is different, which disadvantages Android [users]. Apple did address … the downgraded experience when messaging non-iPhone phones. But the DOJ seems to be saying that that’s not enough because having different colors for the bubbles of text still disadvantages non-iPhone users.”

…In addition to what Radic deems “outdated” complaints, others have pointed out that the DOJ’s case omits a handful of concerns that have been at the heart of other antitrust suits against Apple.

ICLE Senior Scholar Lazar Radic was quoted by India’s The Week about calls to extend the nation’s consultation on changes to competition law. You can read the full piece here.

Dr. Lazar Radic, a Senior Scholar at the International Center for Law & Economics and an Adjunct Professor of Law at IE University, said, “India should explore strategies to attract players to the market before regulating them. Regulatory challenges posed by the Digital Markets Act (DMA) might deter gatekeepers from innovating, potentially leading to negative outcomes for users, similar to the delays experienced by Meta’s Thread launch and Bard’s introduction in Europe. These incidents underscore the broader impact on consumer choice and innovation.” He added, “The DMA is also criticized for its vague goals, lack of clear cost-benefit analysis procedures, and rigid structure without exemptions for consumer benefits and industry innovation. India should avoid hastily adopting experimental regulations and instead focus on understanding the objectives behind Europe’s DMA.”
.”

ICLE was cited in a Law360 story on the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to reimpose Title II on broadband providers. You can read the full piece here.

The International Center for Law & Economics waded into the contentious debate over what regulations would apply to the service if it is reclassified as a Title II service under the Communications Act with a Friday letter that pointed toward an article written by one of the think tank’s own, calling the foreign ownership rules a “trojan horse.” Title II of the act governs telecommunications services. Currently, broadband is regulated as an information service under Title I of the law and is subject to less regulation.

…But according to the think tank, applying Section 214 to broadband companies would “necessitate FCC approval for essential operational decisions, such as network upgrades or service discontinuations, thereby stifling innovation, investment, and the broader objectives of national broadband expansion.”

The think tank also highlights the argument that putting such regulation upon ISPs could “undermine public safety and network resiliency” by making it harder for companies to switch over to newer and safer technologies, since to do so might trigger burdensome regulatory oversight.

Instead, the think tank said it wanted to urge the FCC to “seek a regulatory approach that fosters innovation, investment, and the robust expansion of broadband access across the United States, without imposing unnecessary and counterproductive burdens.”

ICLE’s amicus brief in the McDonald’s no-poach case was cited in a story about the case from Law360. You can read the full piece here.

Several business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported McDonald’s with briefs to the appeals court. The restaurant chain also received backing for its high court petition from the International Center for Law & Economics and the International Franchise Association.