All Article Summaries

Some worry that tech firms could use big data to harm consumers and competition. Forcing firms to share data would reduce incentives to innovate and compete. Concerns about privacy are better addressed by privacy law.

Apple’s iOS 14 update claims to protect privacy by requiring consumers to opt in to allow data sharing by third-party apps. But this unfairly advantages Apple’s own products.

Artificial intelligence (AI) allows firms to adopt new types of anti-competitive behavior, but may also aid in the detection of such behavior. AI collusion could include non-price elements, such as product reviews and ratings.

Data breaches affect the breached firm’s stock price. Fines for data breaches are low, and firms may underinvest in security. Litigation following a breach is less likely when firms offer free credit monitoring.

Some patents must be licensed under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) empowers Chinese authorities to decide cases involving such licenses. Because the Chinese economy is so large, Chinese decisions will affect licensing worldwide.

This paper reviews studies that consider whether antitrust law should be used to regulate big data. Most conclude that such a use of antitrust law could harm innovation and consumers. Generally, the use of big data supports competition and benefits consumers.

Firms that own and license patents but do not produce anything are known as patent assertion entities (PAE), or patent trolls. PAE can harm competition and innovation. This book collects studies of PAEs and competition policy from the United States, China, Korea, and Europe.

This paper considers the application of traditional antitrust analysis to online markets. This paper identifies several ways in which online markets differ from regular markets. Most online markets are multi-sided, and entry barriers are low.

Some patents must be licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. In India, both the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the courts have decided FRAND disputes. The CCI’s decisions lack detail and adopt different rules than the courts.

This article analyzes the impact that institutions, such as the court system, have on antitrust regulation.