Showing results for: “digital markets act”
The FTC’s in-app purchasing complaint against Amazon reflects its flawed, per se approach to unfairness
Today the FTC filed its complaint in federal district court in Washington against Amazon, alleging that the company’s in-app purchasing system permits children to make in-app purchases without parental “informed consent” constituting an “unfair practice” under Section 5 of the FTC Act. As I noted in my previous post on the case, in bringing this ... The FTC’s in-app purchasing complaint against Amazon reflects its flawed, per se approach to unfairness
Cablevision v. Viacom and the Sad State of Tying Doctrine
Whereas the antitrust rules on a number of once-condemned business practices (e.g., vertical non-price restraints, resale price maintenance, price squeezes) have become more economically sensible in the last few decades, the law on tying remains an embarrassment. The sad state of the doctrine is evident in a federal district court’s recent denial of Viacom’s motion to dismiss a tying action ... Cablevision v. Viacom and the Sad State of Tying Doctrine
A Reply to the Rubins on Crony Capitalism
Paul H. Rubin and Joseph S. Rubin advance the provocative position that some crony capitalism may be welfare enhancing. With all due respect, I am not convinced by their defense of government-business cronyism. “Second best correction” arguments can be made with respect to ANY inefficient government rule. In reality, it is almost impossible to calibrate the ... A Reply to the Rubins on Crony Capitalism
From the Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2014, on Crony Capitalism
My son Joe and I have an op-ed in today’s WSJ that should stir up some controversy. Opinion Wall Street Journal The Case for Crony Capitalism Many government regulations choke off entirely legal avenues of potential bank profits. By Paul H. Rubin And Joseph S. Rubin July 7, 2014 7:34 p.m. ET Economics has a ... From the Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2014, on Crony Capitalism
An Additional Cost of Non-Price Rationing
Today’s (July 5, 2014) New York Times has an interesting story about rationing of water in California. There are apparently rules in place urging people to cut back on water use, but they are apparently not well enforced. Unsurprisingly, these appeals and unenforced rules are having relatively small effects. So many municipalities are urging neighbors ... An Additional Cost of Non-Price Rationing
The FTC doubles down on its egregious product design enforcement with a threatened suit against Amazon.com
The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that Amazon is getting — and fighting — the “Apple treatment” from the FTC for its design of its in-app purchases: Amazon.com Inc. is bucking a request from the Federal Trade Commission that it tighten its policies for purchases made by children while using mobile applications. In a letter to the FTC ... The FTC doubles down on its egregious product design enforcement with a threatened suit against Amazon.com
Antitrust Enforcers’ Stealth Undermining of Patent Rights – Shedding Light on a Recent and Troubling Phenomenon
In recent years, antitrust enforcers in Europe and the United States have made public pronouncements and pursued enforcement initiatives that undermine the ability of patentees to earn maximum profits through the unilateral exercise of rights within the scope of their patents, as discussed in separate recent articles by me and by Professor Nicolas Petit of ... Antitrust Enforcers’ Stealth Undermining of Patent Rights – Shedding Light on a Recent and Troubling Phenomenon
Permissionless innovation does not mean “no contracts required”
UPDATE: I’ve been reliably informed that Vint Cerf coined the term “permissionless innovation,” and, thus, that he did so with the sorts of private impediments discussed below in mind rather than government regulation. So consider the title of this post changed to “Permissionless innovation SHOULD not mean ‘no contracts required,'” and I’ll happily accept that ... Permissionless innovation does not mean “no contracts required”
How the Court’s “looks-like-cable-tv” test in Aereo protects the cloud
In our blog post this morning on ABC v. Aereo, we explain why, regardless of which test applies (the majority’s “looks-like-cable-TV” test or the dissent’s volitional conduct test), Aereo infringes on television program owners’ exclusive right under the Copyright Act to publicly perform their works. We also explain why the majority’s test is far less ambiguous than its critics ... How the Court’s “looks-like-cable-tv” test in Aereo protects the cloud
Why the Supreme Court’s Aereo Decision Protects Creators Without Endangering the Cloud
Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its much-awaited decision in ABC v. Aereo. The Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that Aereo directly infringed the copyrights of broadcast television program owners by publicly performing their works without permission. Justice Breyer, who wrote the opinion for the Court, was joined by five other Justices, including Chief Justice ... Why the Supreme Court’s Aereo Decision Protects Creators Without Endangering the Cloud
Halliburton and the Paradox of an Efficient Stock Market
I share Alden’s disappointment that the Supreme Court did not overrule Basic v. Levinson in Monday’s Halliburton decision. I’m also surprised by the Court’s ruling. As I explained in this lengthy post, I expected the Court to alter Basic to require Rule 10b-5 plaintiffs to prove that the complained of misrepresentation occasioned a price effect. ... Halliburton and the Paradox of an Efficient Stock Market
SUPREMES PRESERVE FRAUD ON THE MARKET (AND BAIL OUT CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS) – TIME FOR CONGRESS TO KILL IT
On June 23 the Supreme Court regrettably declined the chance to stem the abuses of private fraud-based class action securities litigation. In Halliburton v. EPJ Fund (June 23, 2014), a six-Justice Supreme Court majority (Chief Justice Roberts writing for the Court, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) reversed the Fifth Circuit and held ... SUPREMES PRESERVE FRAUD ON THE MARKET (AND BAIL OUT CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS) – TIME FOR CONGRESS TO KILL IT
