Showing archive for: “Economics of Innovation”
Competition Confusion in the UK
UK Member of Parliament (former Conservative Party Cabinet Minister) Kit Malthouse published an essay in CapX earlier this month titled “We need a competition revolution.” I, of course, completely agree that competition is vitally important to any economy, and the UK has been struggling with productivity and growth challenges that may be linked to competition ... Competition Confusion in the UK
US-UK Trade Agreement Has Big Pro-Growth Potential
A prospective trade deal between the United States and the United Kingdom could, if handled correctly, be a catalyst to spur global economic growth through enhanced trade and regulatory reform. This would require recognition by other major trading nations of the advantages of removing regulatory obstacles to trade liberalization. Background A Feb. 27 White House ... US-UK Trade Agreement Has Big Pro-Growth Potential
Can Antitrust Promote Competitiveness?
The major Western industrialized nations have experienced dramatically slower economic growth in recent decades. This slowdown has been particularly pronounced in the EU, though the United States has suffered, as well. Regulatory, tax, trade, and energy policy reforms that reduce market distortions and provide incentives for investment, production, and innovation could substantially address this problem. Recalibrating antitrust law (called ... Can Antitrust Promote Competitiveness?
US Biomedical Leadership Threatened by NIH Licensing Guidelines
New licensing guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at the end of the Biden administration could undermine American innovation in the biomedical field—a sector in which the United States has long been the world leader. In a period of growing international competition, including threats from China, the Trump administration may want to ... US Biomedical Leadership Threatened by NIH Licensing Guidelines
Deregulatory Reform, Not Antitrust, Is Key to A Vibrant US Economy
The Biden administration has emphasized “antitrust on steroids” and intrusive regulation as key elements of its economic policy. This has been counterproductive. Federal enforcers should return to prior bipartisan, less-interventionist consumer-oriented antitrust. On a parallel track, the federal government should focus on deregulatory reform to drive a competitively vibrant, faster-growing American economy. Biden Antitrust Has ... Deregulatory Reform, Not Antitrust, Is Key to A Vibrant US Economy
Protecting Innovation: Proposed Reforms Threaten US Pharmaceutical Leadership
Robust property rights and calibrated regulations have long been key ingredients of the U.S. life-sciences ecosystem, facilitating the development of new drugs that require substantial investments in research, development, and commercialization. Recent legislative proposals, however, threaten to undermine this system under the guise of addressing drug-pricing concerns. Of particular concern in the current legislative landscape ... Protecting Innovation: Proposed Reforms Threaten US Pharmaceutical Leadership
U.S. Antitrust Enforcers Should Reject AI Interventionism
The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in tandem with their fellow competition-law enforcers from Europe (the European Commission) and the United Kingdom (the Competition and Markets Authority, or CMA), issued a joint statement July 23 titled “Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI Products.” This joint statement ... U.S. Antitrust Enforcers Should Reject AI Interventionism
A Positive Agenda for Digital-Competition Enforcement
Reasonable people may disagree about their merits, but digital-competition regulations are now the law of the land in many jurisdictions, including the EU and the UK. Policymakers in those jurisdictions will thus need to successfully navigate heretofore uncharted waters in order to implement these regulations reasonably. In recent comments that we submitted to the UK’s ... A Positive Agenda for Digital-Competition Enforcement
Should the Federal Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
Artificial intelligence is in the public-policy spotlight. In October 2023, the Biden administration issued its Presidential Executive Order on AI, which directed federal agencies to cooperate in protecting the public from potential AI-related harms. President Joe Biden said in his March 2024 State of the Union Address that government enforcers will crack down on the ... Should the Federal Government Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
The FTC Office of Patent Invalidation
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced late last month that it had “expanded its campaign against pharmaceutical manufacturers’ improper or inaccurate listing of patents in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book, disputing junk patent listings for diabetes, weight loss, asthma, and COPD drugs, including Novo Nordisk Inc.’s blockbuster weight-loss drug, Ozempic.” Warning letters ... The FTC Office of Patent Invalidation
March-Right-on-In Rights?
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published a request for information (RFI) in December 2023 on its “Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights.” It’s quite something, if not in a good way. March-In Rights Provide Very Limited Exceptions to Intellectual-Property Rights What are “march-in” rights? In brief, they ... March-Right-on-In Rights?
The FTC’s Misguided Campaign to Expand Bayh-Dole ‘March-In’ Rights
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has now gone on record in comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that it supports expanded “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act (Act). But if NIST takes the FTC’s (unexpected, but ultimately unsurprising) contribution seriously, such an expansion could lead to overregulation that would ultimately hurt ... The FTC’s Misguided Campaign to Expand Bayh-Dole ‘March-In’ Rights
