Why Don’t Judges Appoint Experts in Antitrust Cases?
Judge Posner’s decision to appoint a expert in the patent dispute before him in the Seventh Circuit between Apple and Motorola has received some attention. . . .
Brief of Internet Law Scholars to US Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google
Popular Reads
The shareholder wealth maximization myth
In a recent speech at the Netroots Nation, Senator Al Franken tried to frighten the crowd by trotting out the corporate bogeyman that greedily makes . . .
GE “Slashes” Earnings: Free Advice from Nowicki for GE Exec. Jeffrey Immelt!
The Financial Times reported yesterday that an embarrassed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to tell GE shareholders that the 10% growth in earnings for 2008 . . .
All Related Posts
Brief of Internet Law Scholars to US Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT An interactive computer service’s automated recommendations qualify for statutory immunity under Section 230(c)(1). Congress enacted this policy choice in clear text, supported . . .
Brief of ICLE and Law & Economics Scholars in Deslandes v. McDonald’s
Interest of Amicus Curiae[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the . . .
Motion to FTC from L&E Scholars for Leave to File Amicus in GRAIL-Illumina Adjudication
Amici curiae are seventeen law professors, economists, and former government officials with expertise in antitrust, patent law, and law and economics.
ICLE Brief for 9th Circuit in Epic Games v Apple
In this brief for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ICLE and 26 distinguished scholars of law & economics argue that the district court in a suit brought by Epic Games rightly found that Apple’s procompetitive justifications outweigh any purported anticompetitive effects in the market for mobile-gaming transactions.
ICLE Brief for D.C. Circuit in State of New York v Facebook
In this amicus brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ICLE and a dozen scholars of law & economics address the broad consensus disfavoring how New York and other states seek to apply the “unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine in an antitrust case against Facebook.
ICLE Amicus Brief in Fleites v. MindGeek
An ICLE amicus brief filed in U.S. District Court in California supporting a motion to dismiss a suit in which holding Visa collaterally liable would generate massive social cost.
ICLE Amicus Brief in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. v. Mylan Inc.
A brief of amici curiae from the International Center for Law & Economics and other notable law & economics scholars in the 10th Circuit case of Sanofi v Mylan.
ICLE Amicus Brief in ACA Connects et al v Beccera
ICLE supports the appeal filed by ACA Connects et al. seeking review of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. As detailed herein, the district court failed to consider economic and empirical realities that militate in favor of finding irreparable harm to the Appellants’ members. Moreover, the same economic and empirical realities tip the balance of equities in favor of the Appellants, and establish that the public interest is in granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018.
Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of Economics and Antitrust in Support of Petitioners in COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL. v. VIAMEDIA, INC.
ICLE President Geoffrey A. Manne and amici, scholars of economics and antitrust, submitted this brief to address the broad consensus in the academic literature disfavoring the theory underlying plaintiff’s case—so-called “unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine.