Showing results for: “e-books”
Abbott on the Apple e-books case: Apple v. United States and antitrust error cost analysis
As Judge (and Professor) Frank Easterbrook famously explained over three decades ago (in his seminal article The Limits of Antitrust), antitrust is an inherently limited body of law. In crafting and enforcing liability rules to combat market power and encourage competition, courts and regulators may err in two directions: they may wrongly forbid output-enhancing behavior ... Abbott on the Apple e-books case: Apple v. United States and antitrust error cost analysis
Epstein on the Apple e-books case: The hidden traps in the Apple ebook case
On balance the Second Circuit was right to apply the antitrust laws to Apple. Right now the Supreme Court has before it a petition for Certiorari, brought by Apple, Inc., which asks the Court to reverse the decision of the Second Circuit. That decision found per se illegality under the Sherman Act, for Apple’s efforts ... Epstein on the Apple e-books case: The hidden traps in the Apple ebook case
Kolasky on the Apple e-books case: Another reminder that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers”
In my view, the Second Circuit’s decision in Apple e-Books, if not reversed by the Supreme Court, threatens to undo a half century of progress in reforming antitrust doctrine. In decision after decision, from White Motors through Leegin and Actavis, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held—in cases involving both horizontal and vertical restraints—that the only ... Kolasky on the Apple e-books case: Another reminder that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers”
No good deed goes unpunished: EFF slams Google for alleged violation of ambiguous privacy pledge
I have small children and, like any reasonably competent parent, I take an interest in monitoring their Internet usage. In particular, I am sensitive to what ad content they are being served and which sites they visit that might try to misuse their information. My son even uses Chromebooks at his elementary school, which underscores ... No good deed goes unpunished: EFF slams Google for alleged violation of ambiguous privacy pledge
ICLE and leading antitrust scholars urge Supreme Court to review 2nd Circuit ruling in Apple e-books case
Today the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States supporting Apple’s petition for certiorari in its e-books antitrust case. ICLE’s brief was signed by sixteen distinguished scholars of law, economics and public policy, including an Economics Nobel Laureate, a former FTC Commissioner, ten ... ICLE and leading antitrust scholars urge Supreme Court to review 2nd Circuit ruling in Apple e-books case
A Takedown of Common Sense: The 9th Circuit Overturns the Supreme Court in a Transparent Effort to Gut the DMCA
The Ninth Circuit made waves recently with its decision in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., in which it decided that a plaintiff in a copyright infringement case must first take potential fair use considerations into account before filing a takedown notice under the DMCA. Lenz, represented by the EFF, claimed that Universal had not formed ... A Takedown of Common Sense: The 9th Circuit Overturns the Supreme Court in a Transparent Effort to Gut the DMCA
The 2nd Circuit’s Apple e-books decision: Debating the merits and the meaning
On Thursday I will be participating in an ABA panel discussion on the Apple e-books case, along with Mark Ryan (former DOJ attorney) and Fiona Scott-Morton (former DOJ economist), both of whom were key members of the DOJ team that brought the case. Details are below. Judging from the prep call, it should be a ... The 2nd Circuit’s Apple e-books decision: Debating the merits and the meaning
The Second Circuit Misapplies the Per Se Rule in U.S. v. Apple
In its June 30 decision in United States v. Apple Inc., a three-judge Second Circuit panel departed from sound antitrust reasoning in holding that Apple’s e-book distribution agreement with various publishers was illegal per se. Judge Dennis Jacobs’ thoughtful dissent, which substantially informs the following discussion of this case, is worth a close read. In ... The Second Circuit Misapplies the Per Se Rule in U.S. v. Apple
Spicy Documents Serve up a Paltry Antitrust Meal
There is always a temptation for antitrust agencies and plaintiffs to center a case around so-called “hot” documents — typically company documents with a snippet or sound-bites extracted, some times out of context. Some practitioners argue that “[h]ot document can be crucial to the outcome of any antitrust matter.” Although “hot” documents can help catch ... Spicy Documents Serve up a Paltry Antitrust Meal
From Today’s New York Times: Uber and Amazon
The Times seems to specialize in stories that use lots of economics but still miss the important points. Two examples from today: Stories about Uber, and about the dispute between Amazon and Hachette. UBER: The article describes Uber’s using price changes to measure elasticity of demand, and more or less gets it right. But it ... From Today’s New York Times: Uber and Amazon
Senator Markey’s Do Not Track Kids Act of 2013 Raises the Question: What’s the Point of COPPA?
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) continues to be a hot button issue for many online businesses and privacy advocates. On November 14, Senator Markey, along with Senator Kirk and Representatives Barton and Rush introduced the Do Not Track Kids Act of 2013 to amend the statute to include children from 13-15 and add ... Senator Markey’s Do Not Track Kids Act of 2013 Raises the Question: What’s the Point of COPPA?
Why I think the Apple e-books antitrust decision will (or at least should) be overturned
On July 10 a federal judge ruled that Apple violated antitrust law by conspiring to raise prices of e-books when it negotiated deals with five major publishers. I’ve written on the case and the issues involved in it several times, including here, here, here and here. The most recent of these was titled, “Why I ... Why I think the Apple e-books antitrust decision will (or at least should) be overturned
