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
Toast Faces FTC Lawsuit Over Alleged Hidden Fees and Subscription Practices
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Amazon, Uber and Instacart Challenge NYC Delivery Worker Protections in Federal Court
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Wall Street Law Giant Weil Gotshal to Dissolve After Partner Exodus
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
DoorDash to Acquire Instacart in $17 Billion Grocery Delivery Deal
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Anthropic Urges California to Give Courts Power to Block High-Risk AI Models
Oct 29, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Exclusive Dealing
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Exclusive Dealing Without Exclusivity: Screening Contracts, Loyalty Rebates, and the Limits of Antitrust Tests
Oct 25, 2026 by
David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet
When Competition for Exclusivity Raises Prices: Rebates, Pricing Rules, and the Insulin Puzzle
Oct 25, 2026 by
Daniel P. O’Brien & Greg Shaffer
Why Leaving the Door Open Can Be (Much) Worse Than Closing It: Share-Based Requirements, Buyer-Specific Costs, and Foreclosure
Oct 25, 2026 by
Zhijun Chen & Greg Shaffer
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI