Supreme Court Upholds Software Patents in Bilski; “IP Sucks” Camp Mourns
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Bilski v. Kappos, finding that Bilski’s patent was not valid, but reaffirming the patentability of methods and software. Those in the "IP Sucks" camp were hoping the court would embrace their vision and overturn the entire concept software patents. Thankfully, their hopes and dreams lie shattered on the floor soaked in tears, much like my hopes for a USA semifinal birth in the World Cup.
A Modest Proposal for ICANN
When it comes to accountability, ICANN would rather be compared to other U.S. nonprofit companies than to the regulatory bodies it more closely resembles. Instead of attempting to model accountability mechanisms after the global regulatory bodies ICANN most resembles, an ICANN Board member suggested that new accountability measures should be based on those of US-based nonprofits. I think this is a BRILLIANT idea.
Senator Hatch Grills FTC’s Leibowitz on Antitrust Power Grab
As we’ve discussed before, the FTC recently decided to dust off its Section 5 authority to go after “unfair methods of competition” in lieu of using its tradition antitrust authority (Section 2) to pursue some of its tougher cases. This has many antitrust experts concerned, most notably, Bob Litan, former Clinton administration. Apparently, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is also concerned by the FTC’s use of Section 2.
Antitrust Experts Engage Debate (Virtually) Merits of FTC’s Use of Section 5 Authority in Intel Case
Over the past few weeks an online debate has been brewing between antitrust scholars over the FTC case against Intel. The focus of the debate has been the FTC's decision to pursue most of its case using its Section 5 authority to prevent "unfair and deceptive" practices, rather than its Section 2 authority for combating anti-competitive behavior. The discussion began with a piece by Bob Litan, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department in the Clinton Administration, entitled "The FTC's Radical Application of Section 5." As the title suggests, Litan has some serious concerns about the FTC's case in general and its application of Section 5. It's a pretty compelling piece that I recommend to all you antitrust geeks, but if you're short on time/attention span I'll try to summarize.
This Week in Antitrust
This week's look at antitrust news features a group of liquid-crystal display panel manufacturers accused of conspiring to fix prices, the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust investigation of Intel and the effects it will [...]
This Week in Antitrust
Here's another installment in ACT's weekly review of antitrust news articles of note. This week we feature Monsanto's on-going battle to disprove DuPont's claim of the seed maker's "monopolistic" behavior, [...]