Showing results for: “e-books”
This Too Shall Pass: Unassailable Monopolies That Were, in Hindsight, Eminently Assailable
[N]ew combinations are, as a rule, embodied, as it were, in new firms which generally do not arise out of the old ones but start producing beside them; … in general it is not the owner of stagecoaches who builds railways. – Joseph Schumpeter, January 1934 Elizabeth Warren wants to break up the tech giants ... This Too Shall Pass: Unassailable Monopolies That Were, in Hindsight, Eminently Assailable
Elizabeth Warren wants to turn the internet into a literal sewer (service)
Near the end of her new proposal to break up Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple, Senator Warren asks, “So what would the Internet look like after all these reforms?” It’s a good question, because, as she herself notes, “Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn’t exist. Now they are among the most valuable and ... Elizabeth Warren wants to turn the internet into a literal sewer (service)
Correcting the Federalist Society Review’s Mischaracterization of How to Regulate
Ours is not an age of nuance. It’s an age of tribalism, of teams—“Yer either fer us or agin’ us!” Perhaps I should have been less surprised, then, when I read the unfavorable review of my book How to Regulate in, of all places, the Federalist Society Review. I had expected some positive feedback from ... Correcting the Federalist Society Review’s Mischaracterization of How to Regulate
Amazon and the Unwisdom of the Populist Crowd
There are some who view a host of claimed negative social ills allegedly related to the large size of firms like Amazon as an occasion to call for the company’s break up. And, unfortunately, these critics find an unlikely ally in President Trump, whose tweet storms claim that tech platforms are too big and extract unfair rents ... Amazon and the Unwisdom of the Populist Crowd
Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
Jon Jacobson in his initial posting claims that it would be “hard to find an easier case” than Apple e-Books, and David Balto and Chris Sagers seem to agree. I suppose that would be true if, as Richard Epstein claims, “the general view is that horizontal arrangements are per se unlawful.” That, however, is not ... Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
Reed on the Apple e-books case: “We can remember it for you wholesale” – why the model matters in Apple e-books
In Philip K. Dick’s famous short story that inspired the Total Recall movies, a company called REKAL could implant “extra-factual memories” into the minds of anyone. That technology may be fictional, but the Apple eBooks case suggests that the ability to insert extra-factual memories into the courts already exists. The Department of Justice, the Second ... Reed on the Apple e-books case: “We can remember it for you wholesale” – why the model matters in Apple e-books
Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
The Apple e-books case is throwback to Dr. Miles, the 1911 Supreme Court decision that managed to misinterpret the economics of competition and so thwart productive activity for over a century. The active debate here at TOTM reveals why. The District Court and Second Circuit have employed a per se rule to find that the ... Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
Sagers on the Apple e-books case: Why does everybody hate competition so much?
United States v. Apple has fascinated me continually ever since the instantly-sensational complaint was made public, more than three years ago. Just one small, recent manifestation of the larger theme that makes it so interesting is the improbable range of folks who apparently consider certiorari rather likely—not least some commenters here, and even SCOTUSblog, which ... Sagers on the Apple e-books case: Why does everybody hate competition so much?
Balto on the Apple e-books case: Skip the (Apple) appetizer and get to the (McWane) main course
The “magic” of Washington can only go so far. Whether it is political consultants trying to create controversy where there is basic consensus, such as in parts of the political campaign, or the earnest effort to create a controversy over the Apple decision, there may be lots of words exchanged and animated discussion by political ... Balto on the Apple e-books case: Skip the (Apple) appetizer and get to the (McWane) main course
Hylton on the Apple e-books case: The central importance of the Court’s under-appreciated Business Electronics case
For a few months I have thought that the Apple eBooks case would find an easy fit within the Supreme Court’s antitrust decisions. The case that seems closest to me is Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, an unfortunately under-appreciated piece of antitrust precedent. One sign of its under-appreciation is its absence in some recent editions ... Hylton on the Apple e-books case: The central importance of the Court’s under-appreciated Business Electronics case
Albanese on the Apple e-books case: Apple’s Anticlimactic Appeal
In October of last year, I had the chance to interview Hachette CEO Arnaud Nourry from the stage at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and I asked him whether his 2009 concerns that low e-book prices would devalue the book—the driving factor behind the alleged e-book price-fixing conspiracy—were in the the past. After all, much has changed ... Albanese on the Apple e-books case: Apple’s Anticlimactic Appeal
Manne on the Apple e-books case: The Second Circuit’s decision has no support in the law and/or economics
As ICLE argued in its amicus brief, the Second Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Apple Inc. is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2007 Leegin decision, and creates a circuit split with the Third Circuit based on that court’s Toledo Mack ruling. Moreover, the negative consequences of the court’s ruling will be particularly acute ... Manne on the Apple e-books case: The Second Circuit’s decision has no support in the law and/or economics
