Thursday, November 15, 2012
New briefs complicate Supreme Court pay-for-delay conundrum
Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Four More Years: What Obama’s Reelection Means for United States Antitrust Policies
Competitionpolicyinternational.com, here.
L'exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles du XXe siècle - Point d'étape
Syndicat national de l'édition, Présentation ici.
Der Wandel des deutschen Buchmarktes in Zeiten von Digitalisierung und Mobilisierung. Eine institutionenökonomische Analyse
S. Putzig, Abstract zur Dissertation, hier (pdf File).
The Role of the Efficiency Claims In Antitrust Proceedings
OECD, Background Note by the Secretariat (Fiorenzo Bovenzi and Anna Pisarkiewicz), here.
Limitations and constraints to International Co-operation
OECD, Issues Paper by the Secretariat (A. Capobianco), here.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
KICKFLIP, INC., v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
Complaint for Antitrust Violations and Tortious Interference, here.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
Use of Dominance, Unlawful Conduct, and Causation Under Section 36 of the New Zealand Commerce Act: A U.S. Perspective
J. Cross, J. Richards, M. Stucke, S. Weber Waller, here.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The state of e-legal deposit in France: Looking back and envisioning the future at five years of putting new legislation into practice
P. Stirling, G. Illien, P. Sanz and S. Sepetjan, here.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Towards an EU Doctrine of Anticompetitive IP-Related Litigation
S. Vezzoso, (this blog's author), here.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, here.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Off-Topic: European Council on EU's Nobel Prize for Peace
"The European Council is grateful that the European Union was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Prize is an honour for all European citizens and for all EU Member States and institutions. The Nobel Committee rightly reminds how "the Union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in
Europe". At a time of uncertainty, this tribute to past achievements is a strong appeal to safeguard and strengthen Europe for the next generation. Aware that advancing this community of peaceful interests requires constant care and an unwavering will, the members of the European Council regard it as their personal responsibility to ensure Europe remains a continent of progress and prosperity", here.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Unilateral Disclosure of Information with Anticompetitive Effects
OECD Competition Policy Roundtable, here.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Copyright, Interfaces, and a Possible Atlantic Divide
S. Vezzoso (this blog's author), here.
Abstract: "Recent copyright cases on both sides of the Atlantic focused on important interoperability issues. While the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. assessed data formats under the EU Software Directive, the ruling by the Northern District of California Court in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. dealt with application programming interfaces. The European decision is rightly celebrated as a further important step in the promotion of interoperability in the EU. This article argues that, despite appreciable signs of convergence across the Atlantic, the assessment of application programming interfaces under EU law could still turn out to be quite different, and arguably much less pro-interoperability, than under U.S. law."
Abstract: "Recent copyright cases on both sides of the Atlantic focused on important interoperability issues. While the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. assessed data formats under the EU Software Directive, the ruling by the Northern District of California Court in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. dealt with application programming interfaces. The European decision is rightly celebrated as a further important step in the promotion of interoperability in the EU. This article argues that, despite appreciable signs of convergence across the Atlantic, the assessment of application programming interfaces under EU law could still turn out to be quite different, and arguably much less pro-interoperability, than under U.S. law."
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
When Internet Traffic and Peering Agreement meet French Competition Law
Berkeleyantitrust.blogspot.com, here.
The America Invents Act 500: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities on US Litigation
R. Feldman, S. Jeruss, J. Walker, here
Authors Guild v. Hathitrust
US District Court Southern District of New York, 11 CV 6351 (HB), Opinion and Order here.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
SDO IP Policies in Dynamic Industries
D. Teece, P. Grindley, E. Sherry, written contribution to the ITU Patent Roundtable, here (Word file).
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Opinion 08/2012 providing further input on the data protection reform discussions
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, here.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Saturday, October 06, 2012
The Memory of the World in the Digital Age: Digitization and Preservation
Vancouver Declaration (draft recommendations), here.
Europeanization of EU member-state competition policy: The commission’s leadership role
P. Barros, J. Clougherty and J. Seldeslachts, here.
FTC Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review in AndroGel "Pay-for-Delay" Case
Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc, petition for certiorari, here.
Friday, October 05, 2012
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Digital archives: Don't let copyright block data mining
M. Jockers, M. Sag & J. Schultz, Nature.com, here.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Monday, October 01, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
MySQL: A Business Parable
- Open Source, the IP always owned
- LAMP web stack, MySQL a de-facto standard (FB, Google, Twitter, Yahoo)
- dual licensing (consulting and support, T-shirts sale: uninteresting to VC)
- VC, looking for an "exit"
- VC, looking for an "exit"
- Sun and then Oracle acquisitions
- Oracle "not a charity"
From the Open Forum Europe 2012 Conference, here.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Why Apple is settling EC's e-books antitrust case -- but not DOJ's
Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Yet Another Lobbying Alliance in the IT Sector: The Internet Association
Internetassociation.org, here.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Update on Trademark-Related Aspects of the Expansion of the Domain Name System
WIPO, Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, here.
Recommandations pour l'ouverture des données et contenus culturels
GROUPE DE TRAVAIL OPEN GLAM, ici.
The German Proposal on a New Leistungsschutzrecht – Endangering Press Diversity and the Digital Economy
Computer & Communications Industry Association, here.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
e-Books and the boundaries of Antitrust
D. Bosco, J. Jacobson, K. Piro, G. Manne, W. Rinehart, F. Siiriainen, M. Powell, A. Oh, in Tendances: Concurrences, here.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress
US Congressional Research Service, here.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
STATE-INITIATED RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
7TH ASCOLA CONFERENCE, Mackenzie Presbyterian University São Paulo, Video here.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Monday, September 03, 2012
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
ACCC Has an Excellent New Cartels Movie to Raise Awareness
Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog, here.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
ICANN: Antitrust Allegations Before US District Court
Manwin Licensing International S.A.R.L., et al. v. ICM Registry, LLC, et al., Case CV 11-9514 PSG (JCGx), Order GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part the
Motions to Dismiss, here.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Apple-Samsung Amended Jury Verdict
US District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, here.
Friday, August 24, 2012
WIPO: 2012 IP Facts and Figures: Computer Technologies' Patent Dominance
Here.
However, "most national and regional IP office statistics refer to 2010".
At p.21: "(I)n 2010, computer technology (117,576) and electrical machinery (104,543) accounted for the largest numbers of applications, with a combined share of 15% of all published application" (emphasis mine).
However, "most national and regional IP office statistics refer to 2010".
At p.21: "(I)n 2010, computer technology (117,576) and electrical machinery (104,543) accounted for the largest numbers of applications, with a combined share of 15% of all published application" (emphasis mine).
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Lemley on what drives competition in the IT space
“Apple presented the intellectual property view of innovation — we created it, we own it, you can’t use it. Samsung presented the competition view of innovation — everyone should make great products and let consumers choose. IP law generally sides with Apple at this broad level, though there is a pretty good argument that it is competition, not monopoly, that drives great innovation in the IT space”, from Competing Views of Competition in Apple-Samsung Trial, Allthingsd.com, here.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Embracing Magic
K. Walker, here. #TPIAspen
Quotation from Magical Patent Policy: "one third of all patent lawsuits now involve software
patents, way out of whack to the relative size of the industry. Software and Internet patents are litigated
eight times more often than other patents. Troll lawsuits cost productive U.S. companies $29 billion in
direct payouts last year, $80 billion a year when you take all costs into account, and more than $500
billion in the years since the Federal Circuit first authorized software patents. Worst of all, wasteful
patent litigation is costing customers real money and real choices in the devices they love.
This happens because software patents too often allow ownership of broad, sometimes trivial ideas. It
should not be this way. It is the execution as much as the idea that often matters in the
marketplace. Facebook wasn’t the first social network -- but it thrived because it executed well. Google
wasn’t first in search, but the way we executed has made our results better."
Quotation from Magical Competition Policy: "we should pay close attention to switching costs and lock-in. Since everyone is competing against
everyone else, consumers, advertisers, and publishers typically have lots of options. But those options
are less useful if walled gardens or proprietary formats make it difficult for users to switch. That’s why
Google created our Data Liberation Front, letting users easily export their data. The inability to move
your data -- like contacts, emails, and web history -- from one service to another can sometimes make
switching more difficult in ways that are bad for consumers and bad for competition."
Quotation from Magical Patent Policy: "one third of all patent lawsuits now involve software
patents, way out of whack to the relative size of the industry. Software and Internet patents are litigated
eight times more often than other patents. Troll lawsuits cost productive U.S. companies $29 billion in
direct payouts last year, $80 billion a year when you take all costs into account, and more than $500
billion in the years since the Federal Circuit first authorized software patents. Worst of all, wasteful
patent litigation is costing customers real money and real choices in the devices they love.
This happens because software patents too often allow ownership of broad, sometimes trivial ideas. It
should not be this way. It is the execution as much as the idea that often matters in the
marketplace. Facebook wasn’t the first social network -- but it thrived because it executed well. Google
wasn’t first in search, but the way we executed has made our results better."
Quotation from Magical Competition Policy: "we should pay close attention to switching costs and lock-in. Since everyone is competing against
everyone else, consumers, advertisers, and publishers typically have lots of options. But those options
are less useful if walled gardens or proprietary formats make it difficult for users to switch. That’s why
Google created our Data Liberation Front, letting users easily export their data. The inability to move
your data -- like contacts, emails, and web history -- from one service to another can sometimes make
switching more difficult in ways that are bad for consumers and bad for competition."
Panel - Internet Competition: Implications for Antitrust
ASPEN 2012 AGENDA, Technology Policy Institute
August 21, 2012
Susan Athey, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Harvard University and Visiting Researcher, Microsoft Research New England
Tim Bresnahan, Landau Professor in Technology and the Economy, Stanford University
Carlos Kirjner, Vice President and Senior Analyst, Internet, Alliance Bernstein
William Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy; Professor of Law; Director, Competition Law Center, George Washington University
Edith Ramirez, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Hal Varian, Chief Economist, Google
Thomas Lenard, President and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute (moderator)
Full Agenda here.
Full Agenda here.
- EU setting standards for competition policy globally
- Platform competition and multihoming
- Complements/substitutes
- counterfactuals and harm to competition by innovation
- leadership in the vertical stack
- lesson from MS: from complement to possible substitute
- leadership in the vertical stack
- lesson from MS: from complement to possible substitute
- dangerous competition threats ex-post and ex-ante (Google/Netscape)
- counterfactual analysis when high quality products are given away for free (multi-sided markets)
- screen control and design
- fines' irrelevance
- changing nature of switching costs (e.g. privacy issues suddenly relevant to Internet users and Google users in particular)
- the importance of behavioural economics in order to understand consumers' actions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Centre for a Digital Society , Video here . These are my very rough talking points on pay or okay in full length (more than I actually had...
-
Arstechnica.co.uk, here .
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
Public Knowledge, here .
-
TechCrunch, here .
-
Here (thanks to Netzpolitik).
-
J. Morrison, here .
-
Gigaom.com, here .