Showing archive for: “Telecom”
What Has Big Tech Ever Done for Us? Part Two
[TOTM: The following is part of a blog series by TOTM guests and authors on the law, economics, and policy of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The entire series of posts is available here. This post is authored by Dirk Auer, (Senior Researcher, Liege Competition & Innovation Institute; Senior Fellow, ICLE).] Across the globe, millions of ... What Has Big Tech Ever Done for Us? Part Two
Prices are Information, Even During a Crisis
[TOTM: The following is part of a blog series by TOTM guests and authors on the law, economics, and policy of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The entire series of posts is available here. This post is authored by Ben Sperry, (Associate Director, Legal Research, International Center for Law & Economics).] The visceral reaction to the ... Prices are Information, Even During a Crisis
The Not Neutrality of Tech Reporting: Discussing the Economics of Lifting Data Caps During a Stay-at-home Crisis
[TOTM: The following is part of a blog series by TOTM guests and authors on the law, economics, and policy of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The entire series of posts is available here. This post is authored by Justin “Gus” Hurwitz, (Associate Professor of Law & Co-director, Space, Cyber, and Telecom Law Program, University of ... The Not Neutrality of Tech Reporting: Discussing the Economics of Lifting Data Caps During a Stay-at-home Crisis
What Has Big Tech Ever Done for Us? Part I
[TOTM: The following is part of a blog series by TOTM guests and authors on the law, economics, and policy of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The entire series of posts is available here. This post is authored by Dirk Auer, (Senior Fellow of Law & Economics, International Center for Law & Economics).] Republican Senator Josh ... What Has Big Tech Ever Done for Us? Part I
Thank you, Stigler Center, for the Compliment. Now Here’s Why You’re Wrong.
This guest post is by Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation at Charles Koch Institute and former Chief Technologist at the Federal Trade Commission. Is it rude to respond to a compliment with a rebuttal? I’m afraid that’s what I’m about to do. The antitrust reformers at the University of Chicago’s Stigler ... Thank you, Stigler Center, for the Compliment. Now Here’s Why You’re Wrong.
“You don’t get to be the umpire and have a team”: should we regulate the activities of digital platforms in neighboring markets?
This guest post is by Patrick Todd, an England-qualified solicitor and author on competition law/policy in digital markets. The above quote is not about Democrat-nominee hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s policy views on sport. It is in fact an analogy to her proposal of splitting Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple (“GAFA”) apart from their respective ancillary lines ... “You don’t get to be the umpire and have a team”: should we regulate the activities of digital platforms in neighboring markets?
What Can the Stock Market Tell Us About the T-Mobile/Sprint Merger?
On Monday evening, around 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, news leaked that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had decided to allow the T-Mobile/Sprint merger to go through, giving the companies a victory over a group of state attorneys general trying to block the deal. Thomas Philippon, a professor ... What Can the Stock Market Tell Us About the T-Mobile/Sprint Merger?
Manne & Stout 1: The Illogic of a Contract/Merger Equivalency Assumption in the Assessment of Vertical Mergers
[TOTM: The following is part of a symposium by TOTM guests and authors on the 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines. The entire series of posts is available here. This post is authored by Geoffrey A. Manne (President & Founder, ICLE; Distinguished Fellow, Northwestern University Center on Law, Business, and Economics ); and Kristian Stout (Associate Director, ... Manne & Stout 1: The Illogic of a Contract/Merger Equivalency Assumption in the Assessment of Vertical Mergers
Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 4 (Microsoft)
The DOJ and 20 state AGs sued Microsoft on May 18, 1998 for unlawful maintenance of its monopoly position in the PC market. The government accused the desktop giant of tying its operating system (Windows) and its web browser (Internet Explorer). Microsoft had indeed become dominant in the PC market by the late 1980s: But ... Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 4 (Microsoft)
The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 3 (AT&T)
The case against AT&T began in 1974. The government alleged that AT&T had monopolized the market for local and long-distance telephone service as well as telephone equipment. In 1982, the company entered into a consent decree to be broken up into eight pieces (the “Baby Bells” plus the parent company), which was completed in 1984. ... The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 3 (AT&T)
The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 2 (IBM)
The Department of Justice began its antitrust case against IBM on January 17, 1969. The DOJ sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act, claiming IBM tried to monopolize the market for “general-purpose digital computers.” The case lasted almost thirteen years, ending on January 8, 1982 when Assistant Attorney General William Baxter declared the case to be ... The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 2 (IBM)
The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 1
Big Tech continues to be mired in “a very antitrust situation,” as President Trump put it in 2018. Antitrust advocates have zeroed in on Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon as their primary targets. These advocates justify their proposals by pointing to the trio of antitrust cases against IBM, AT&T, and Microsoft. Elizabeth Warren, in announcing ... The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 1
