Tim Wu, Dec 20, 2013
Competition law and Intellectual Property have divergent intellectual cultures–the former more pragmatic and experimentalist; the latter influenced by natural law and vested rights. “The US Supreme Court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis is an intellectual victory for the former approach, one that suggests that antitrust law can and should be used to introduce greater scrutiny of the specific consequences of intellectual property grants…
Featured News
Michael Burry Accuses Nvidia of Blocking AMD From Key AI Deal
Mar 10, 2026 by
CPI
Meta to Charge Advertisers Fee in EU Markets With Digital Taxes
Mar 10, 2026 by
CPI
German Advertising and Media Groups Urge Antitrust Action Against Apple
Mar 10, 2026 by
CPI
Dutch Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Requiring Chronological Feeds on Facebook and Instagram
Mar 10, 2026 by
CPI
Sony Fights £2 Billion London Lawsuit Over PlayStation Store Prices
Mar 10, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece