Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Intellectual Property Law (5)
- Law (5)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (3)
- Business (3)
- Economics (3)
-
- Industrial Organization (3)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (3)
- Technology and Innovation (3)
- Economic Policy (1)
- Electrical and Computer Engineering (1)
- Engineering (1)
- Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation (1)
- Political Economy (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Science and Technology Policy (1)
- Systems and Communications (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Competition For Innovation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Competition For Innovation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
Both antitrust and IP law are limited and imperfect instruments for regulating innovation. The problems include high information costs and lack of sufficient knowledge, special interest capture, and the jury trial system, to name a few. More fundamentally, antitrust law and intellectual property law have looked at markets in very different ways. Further, over the last three decades antitrust law has undergone a reformation process that has made it extremely self conscious about its goals. While the need for such reform is at least as apparent in patent and copyright law, very little true reform has actually occurred.
Antitrust has …
Activating Actavis, Aaron Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
Activating Actavis, Aaron Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court provided fundamental guidance about how courts should handle antitrust challenges to reverse payment patent settlements. The Court came down strongly in favor of an antitrust solution to the problem, concluding that “an antitrust action is likely to prove more feasible administratively than the Eleventh Circuit believed.” At the same time, Justice Breyer’s majority opinion acknowledged that the Court did not answer every relevant question. The opinion closed by “leav[ing] to the lower courts the structuring of the present rule-of-reason antitrust litigation.”
This article is an effort to help courts and …
Institutional Advantage In Competition And Innovation Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Institutional Advantage In Competition And Innovation Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
In the United States responsibility for innovation policy and competition policy are assigned to different agencies with different authority. The principal institutional enforcers of patent policy are the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the federal district courts as overseen by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and ultimately the Supreme Court. While competition policy is not an explicit part of patent policy, competition issues arise frequently, even when they are not seen as such.
Since early in the twentieth century antitrust courts have had to confront practices that …
Protocol Layering And Internet Policy, Christopher S. Yoo
Protocol Layering And Internet Policy, Christopher S. Yoo
All Faculty Scholarship
An architectural principle known as protocol layering is widely recognized as one of the foundations of the Internet’s success. In addition, some scholars and industry participants have urged using the layers model as a central organizing principle for regulatory policy. Despite its importance as a concept, a comprehensive analysis of protocol layering and its implications for Internet policy has yet to appear in the literature. This Article attempts to correct this omission. It begins with a detailed description of the way the five-layer model developed, introducing protocol layering’s central features, such as the division of functions across layers, information hiding, …
Competitive Patent Law, William Hubbard
Competitive Patent Law, William Hubbard
All Faculty Scholarship
Can U.S. patent law help American businesses compete in global markets? In early 2011, President Barack Obama argued that, to obtain economic prosperity, the United States must "out-innovate . .. the rest of the world,"1 and that patent reform is a "critical dimension[]" 2 of this innovation agenda. Soon thereafter, Congress enacted the most sweeping reforms to U.S. patent law in more than half a century, contending that the changes will "give American inventors and innovators the 21st century patent system they need to compete."3 Surprisingly, no legal scholar has assessed whether patent reform is capable of making …
The Competitive Advantage Of Weak Patents, William Hubbard
The Competitive Advantage Of Weak Patents, William Hubbard
All Faculty Scholarship
Does U.S. patent law increase the competitiveness of U.S. firms in global markets? This Article argues that, contrary to the beliefs of many U.S. lawmakers, U.S. patent law currently undermines the ability of U.S. firms to compete in global markets because strong U.S. patent rights actually weaken an overlooked but critical determinant of U.S. competitiveness: rivalry among U.S. firms. Intense domestic rivalry drives firms to improve relentlessly, spawns related and supporting domestic industries, and encourages the domestic development of advanced factors of production—like specialized labor forces. U.S. patents restrict rivalry among foreign firms less because U.S. patents have little extraterritorial …