Showing archive for: “Supreme Court”
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
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”
Heritage Antitrust Conference Highlights Domestic and International Policy Challenges for the Next Administration
On January 26 the Heritage Foundation hosted a one-day conference on “Antitrust Policy for a New Administration.” Featured speakers included three former heads of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) (D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg, James Rill, and Thomas Barnett) and a former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (keynote ... Heritage Antitrust Conference Highlights Domestic and International Policy Challenges for the Next Administration
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
The Federal Circuit Fails to Connect Clearly with Modern Technology by Protecting Infringing Data Imports
Today, in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that electronic transmissions of digital data from abroad do not involve the importation of “articles” for purposes of Section 337 of the Tariff Act (“Section 337,” 19 U.S.C. § 1337), thereby stripping the U.S. International Trade ... The Federal Circuit Fails to Connect Clearly with Modern Technology by Protecting Infringing Data Imports
The latest round in the “product-hopping” battle
Thanks to the Truth on the Market bloggers for having me. I’m a long-time fan of the blog, and excited to be contributing. The Third Circuit will soon review the appeal of generic drug manufacturer, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, in the latest case involving “product hopping” in the pharmaceutical industry — Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. Warner Chilcott. Product ... The latest round in the “product-hopping” battle
Suprema v. ITC: The Case for Chevron Deference
Recently, the en banc Federal Circuit decided in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC that the International Trade Commission could properly prevent the importation of articles that infringe under an indirect liability theory. The core of the dispute in Suprema was whether § 337 of the Tariff Act’s prohibition against “importing articles that . . . infringe ... Suprema v. ITC: The Case for Chevron Deference
One Step Forward: The Supremes Add Some Bite to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis
Today, in Michigan v. EPA, a five-Justice Supreme Court majority (Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, with Thomas issuing a separate concurrence) held that the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider costs, including the cost of compliance, when deciding ... One Step Forward: The Supremes Add Some Bite to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Supreme Court Puts the Bite on Special Interest Dental Regulations and Strikes a Blow for Economic Liberty
In its February 25 North Carolina Dental decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that a state regulatory board that is controlled by market participants in the industry being regulated cannot invoke “state action” antitrust immunity unless it is “actively supervised” by the state. In so ruling, the Court struck a significant ... The Supreme Court Puts the Bite on Special Interest Dental Regulations and Strikes a Blow for Economic Liberty
Challenging Anticompetitive Government Action, in Light of Constitutional Constraints on U.S. Antitrust Law
On December 11 I published a Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum on this topic. I concluded that the federal courts have done a fairly good job in harmonizing antitrust with constitutionally-based federalism and First Amendment interests (petitioning, free speech, and religious freedom). Nevertheless, it must be admitted that these “constitutional constraints” somewhat limit the ability of ... Challenging Anticompetitive Government Action, in Light of Constitutional Constraints on U.S. Antitrust Law
