“From a public policy perspective, the goal of the FTC’s enforcement actions should be to maximize net social benefits,” explains Thomas Lenard, Technology Policy Institute President and Senior Fellow, in comments filed today with the Federal Trade Commission. “In the case of Nomi Technologies, the Commission failed to show that its Consent Agreement will yield any net benefits. Indeed, it is questionable whether the Agreement will yield any benefits at all.”
All Publications
Event – Innovation, Regulation, and the EU’s Digital Single Market Strategy
The European Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy is intended to break down the numerous barriers to cross-border online activity that currently exist in the European Union. The proposal covers a broad array of policies, including harmonizing EU rules for online purchases of goods, improving cross-border parcel delivery, integrating telecommunications regulation, and reducing burdens of different VAT regimes. While many of these proposals do not seem controversial – at least on this side of the Atlantic – some require closer scrutiny. For example, the strategy document includes a section on online platforms, reflecting the support of some officials for a general regulatory framework for “essential digital platforms.” In addition, the Commission is launching an inquiry in tandem with the Digital Single Market Strategy on the application of competition law in the e-commerce area.
In Google Case, do what’s Best for Consumers
Europe’s new top antitrust official, Margrethe Vestager, last week moved forward with a major antitrust suit against Google. At issue is the same “search bias” question that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigated for two years. The FTC, however, closed its investigation due to lack of evidence of an antitrust violation and any feasible remedy likely to benefit consumers. The European Commission disagrees and is accusing Google of abusing its dominant position in search by favoring its own products, particularly its online shopping service.
Event Reminder- Patent Reform and the 114th Congress: What does the Evidence Show?
Patent reform is high on the agenda for Congress. Competing bills introduced this year take different approaches to improving the patent litigation system. Will these proposals, ranging from heightened pleading standards to changing the standard for fee shifting, strengthen or weaken the patent system? What will be the effect on innovation? Panelists at “Patent Reform and the 114th Congress: What does the Evidence Show?” hosted by the Technology Policy Institute, will attempt to disentangle some of the conflicting data and research.
Event – Patent Reform and the 114th Congress: What does the Evidence Show?
Patent reform is high on the agenda for Congress. Competing bills introduced this year take different approaches to improving the patent litigation system. Will these proposals, ranging from heightened pleading standards to changing the standard for fee shifting, strengthen or weaken the patent system? What will be the effect on innovation? Panelists at “Patent Reform and the 114th Congress: What does the Evidence Show?” hosted by the Technology Policy Institute, will attempt to disentangle some of the conflicting data and research.
Patent Reform and the 114th Congress: What does the Evidence Show?
Patent reform is high on the agenda for Congress. Competing bills introduced this year take different approaches to improving the patent litigation system. Will these proposals, ranging from heightened pleading standards to changing the standard for fee shifting, strengthen or weaken the patent system? What will be the effect on innovation? Panelists at “Patent Reform and the 114th Congress: What does the Evidence Show?” hosted by the Technology Policy Institute, will attempt to disentangle some of the conflicting data and research. More details regarding the panel will be announced in upcoming weeks.
An Opportunity to Make Transparency the Norm at the FCC
On Feb. 26, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to regulate Internet service providers under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, but the public still isn’t allowed to see the text of the decision. Such secrecy has quickly led to a firestorm of conspiracy talk.