FTC Hearings on Competition & Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. Comments of the International Center for Law & Economics: The Rise of Neo-Brandeisian Competition Policy: Populism and Political Power and the Threat to Economically Grounded, Evidence-Based. Competition Law and Consumer Protection Regulation. Submitted August 20, 2018.
Julian Morris •
August 9, 2018
Comments on the Draft Control of Tobacco and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill 2018. Submitted by Julian Morris, Executive Director, International Center for Law and Economics. Senior Fellow, Reason Foundation. 9 August 2018.
Properly considered, there is no novel conflict between promoting the flow of information and protecting intellectual property rights online. While the specific mechanisms employed to mediate between these two principles may differ, the fundamental principles that determine the dividing line between “legal” and “illegal” content and its distribution offline can and should be respected online, as well.
We are a group of eight scholars of antitrust law and economics affiliated with the International Center for Law & Economics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center based in Portland, OR. Without taking a position on the merits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, this letter provides a brief explication of our views on some of the important economic issues involved in the transaction’s antitrust review.
Kristian Stout •
May 31, 2018
Summary Chairwoman Greenstein, Vice Chairman Lagana, and members of the Law and Public Safety Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before . . .
Geoffrey A. Manne •
February 26, 2018
Summary Chairman Marino, Ranking Member Cicilline, and Members of the Com- mittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. The . . .
Summary While the three-step burden-shifting framework for evaluating antitrust cases under the rule of reason is conceptually well-accepted and understood, case law remains unclear regarding . . .
This case raises significant questions about the thoroughness with which a court must review agency decisionmaking—or the extent to which a court may instead defer to that decisionmaking—when the agency has reversed a prior policy determination in the absence of a change in applicable law.
In its description of this workshop, the Commission notes that “consumers may suffer injury when information about them is misused,” and suggests that this workshop “will address questions such as how to best characterize these injuries, how to accurately measure such injuries,” and so on.