Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
Popular Media Everyone is worried about growing concentration in U.S. markets. Biden’s executive order last year on competition starts with the statement that “excessive market concentration threatens . . .
Everyone is worried about growing concentration in U.S. markets. Biden’s executive order last year on competition starts with the statement that “excessive market concentration threatens basic economic liberties, democratic accountability, and the welfare of workers, farmers, small businesses, startups, and consumers.” No word on the threat of concentration to baby puppies, but the takeaway is clear. Concentration is everywhere, and it’s bad.
Read the full piece here.
Presentations & Interviews ICLE Academic Affiliate David Teece was a guest, along with Patrick Kilbride of the Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on . . .
ICLE Academic Affiliate David Teece was a guest, along with Patrick Kilbride of the Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on IPWatchdog‘s Understanding IP Matters podcast that focused on whether U.S. policymakers have taken for granted the role intellectual property plays in shaping the nation’s ability to innovate and driving its economic advantage. The full episode is embedded below.
TOTM Late last month, 25 former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law submitted a letter to Assistant . . .
Late last month, 25 former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law submitted a letter to Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter in support of the U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) July 2020 Avanci business-review letter (ABRL) dealing with patent pools. The pro-Avanci letter was offered in response to an October 2022 letter to Kanter from ABRL critics that called for reconsideration of the ABRL. A good summary account of the “battle of the scholarly letters” may be found here.
TOTM “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” says Al Pacino’s character, Michael Corleone, in Godfather III. That’s how Facebook and . . .
“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” says Al Pacino’s character, Michael Corleone, in Godfather III. That’s how Facebook and Google must feel about S. 673, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA).
Scholarship Abstract “Woke” companies are those that are committed to socially progressive causes, with a particular focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion as these terms are . . .
“Woke” companies are those that are committed to socially progressive causes, with a particular focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion as these terms are understood through the lens of critical theory. There is little evidence of systematic support for woke ideas among executives and the population at large, and going woke does not appear to improve company performance. Why, then are so many firms embracing woke policies and attitudes? We suggest that going woke is an emergent strategy that is largely shaped by middle managers rather than owners, top managers, or employees. We build on theories from agency theory, institutional theory, and intra-organizational ecology to argue that wokeness arises from middle managers and support personnel using their delegated responsibility and specialist status to engage in woke internal advocacy, which may increase their influence and job security. Broader social and cultural trends tend to reinforce this process. We discuss implications for organizational behavior and performance including perceived corporate hypocrisy (“woke-washing”), the potential loss of creativity from restricting viewpoint diversity, and the need for companies to keep up with a constantly changing cultural landscape.
TL;DR Background… As leaders of the U.S. Senate work to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the ongoing lame-duck session, some reports suggest that . . .
As leaders of the U.S. Senate work to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the ongoing lame-duck session, some reports suggest that S. 673, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA), could be added to the legislative package. Approved in September 2022 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the JCPA aims to boost the fortunes of traditional media companies by forcing “covered” online platforms to pay for digital journalism accessed via their services. The bill would require that platforms continue to display digital journalism, while setting out an intricate process whereby digital-journalism providers would collectively negotiate the price of content with platforms.
This quixotic attempt to prop up flailing media firms will create legally sanctioned cartels that harm consumers, while forcing online platforms to carry and pay for content in ways that violate long-established principles of intellectual property, economic efficiency, and the U.S. Constitution.
Read the full explainer here.
Presentations & Interviews ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff moderated a Hudson Institute webinar on how the development of new and valuable technologies often spurs misguided arguments that the . . .
ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff moderated a Hudson Institute webinar on how the development of new and valuable technologies often spurs misguided arguments that the need to respect patent rights somehow gets in the way of implementing new technologies. Specifically, with the Internet of Things (IoT) expected to reach $650.5 billion USD by the year 2026, the panel explored spurious claims that a growing number of patent rights somehow hinders innovation. Panelists included:
Video of the full event is embedded below.
Scholarship Abstract Some state insurance regulators have been using their regulatory muscle to coerce insurers into furthering their political ends. They have protected favored but harmful . . .
Some state insurance regulators have been using their regulatory muscle to coerce insurers into furthering their political ends. They have protected favored but harmful commercial activity and have strangled legal but disfavored individual conduct.
In the process, those regulators have disabled the benefits that a properly functioning insurance market can provide. They have hampered individuals’ ability to engage in desirable activities, like home ownership, that would otherwise be too risky given their incomes; they have made socially desirable but not risk-free activities, like responsible firearm ownership, less safe; and they have deprived the market of data on safety and risks. Such use of government power to abuse an “outgroup” for the benefit of the “ingroup” can also have devastating effects on social stability.
This paper analyzes the situation through two cases and suggests solutions that preserve near-plenary state control over insurance under the McCarran-Ferguson Act while limiting state regulators’ ability to abuse this special federal-state arrangement.
Popular Media Reflecting on the decades of merger challenges brought to that point under the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Justice Potter Stewart observed in 1966 that . . .
Reflecting on the decades of merger challenges brought to that point under the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Justice Potter Stewart observed in 1966 that “the sole consistency I can find” is that “the Government always wins.”
