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
Tyson Reaches Deal to End Pork Antitrust Case With Food Service Buyers
Jan 28, 2026 by
CPI
House Judiciary Committee Questions CVS Health’s Policies in New Antitrust Report
Jan 28, 2026 by
CPI
Kalshi and Polymarket Face New US Scrutiny as Oversight Tightens
Jan 28, 2026 by
CPI
EU Pushes for Digital Euro to Reduce Reliance on US Payment Firms
Jan 28, 2026 by
CPI
UK Moves to Rein in Google’s AI Search Practices
Jan 28, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber