Regulation and Antitrust

About ITIF’s Schumpeter Project: Competition Policy for the Innovation Economy
The Schumpeterian perspective represents a new intellectual framework for practical antitrust reforms that enable the innovation economy. That is the mission of ITIF’s Schumpeter Project: to advance dynamic competition policy in which innovation is a central concern for antitrust enforcement, not a secondary consideration.
Read More >>

Led by ITIF’s director of antitrust and innovation policy, Aurelien Portuese, the Schumpeter Project conducts legal and economic research, publishes actionable policy analysis, organizes high-level discussions, and engages with policymakers to rethink the relationship between competition and innovation for the benefit of consumers, innovative companies, the economy, and society. Read more in ITIF’s June 2021 report, “Principles of Dynamic Antitrust: Competing Through Innovation.”

 

Regulation and Antitrust
Check a box to narrow search for individual content items that cover numerous issues.
May 2, 2022
Monopolies Are Not Taking a Fifth of Your Wages
A recent Treasury report on labor market competition provided a misleading narrative about labor market concentration and its effect on workers. Labor market power is largely due to labor market frictions, not concentration. Firms are not profiting at the expense of workers.
April 28, 2022
Dynamic Antitrust Discussion Series: “Chief Economists’ Perspectives on Horizontal Merger Guidelines”
Please join ITIF for the latest in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust.” In this installment, Julie Carlson will sit down with former chief economists from the DOJ and FTC to discuss their views on the planned revisions to the guidelines.
April 18, 2022
We Should Not Allow China to Weaponize Antitrust for Theft of American Intellectual Property
Protecting American innovation is especially critical in an environment in which the military increasingly depends on dual-use technologies such as the memory products at issue in this transaction. We should not allow China to weaponize antitrust for theft of American intellectual property.
April 14, 2022
Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Reflecting on the Path Forward for Schumpeterian Antitrust
ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy and George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center co-hosted a special conference for antitrust scholars and practitioners to gather and reflect on the Schumpeterian approach to antitrust as we paid tribute to Jerry Ellig’s seminal work on dynamic antitrust.
April 8, 2022
Joint Conference on Precautionary Antitrust: The Rule of Law and Innovation Under Assault
Please join ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy and the Classical Liberal Institute at NYU School of Law for a joint conference to discuss the shifting antitrust paradigm and its implications for the rule of law and innovation.
April 4, 2022
Five False Claims Underscore the Case Against the Senate’s Leading Antitrust Bills
The Senate’s main antitrust bills—the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act—emulate a stalled House package and the EU’s deeply flawed Digital Markets Act. They err on many fronts, and the main arguments for them are at odds with reality.
April 1, 2022
Don’t Confuse Me With Facts: Denying the Lack of Growth in U.S. Economic Concentration
Anticorporate Neo-Brandeisians have a big stake in painting a dystopian picture of rampant monopolists—killing small businesses, jacking up prices, and crushing wages—all in their attempts to achieve a wholesale restructuring of U.S. antitrust law and practice. But these claims to date have largely been hortatory.
April 1, 2022
Dynamic Antitrust Discussion Series: “The Regulatory Revolution Against Mergers”
Please join ITIF for the latest in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy hosts leading scholars and antitrust enforcers to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation.
March 31, 2022
Amicus Brief in the Matter of Epic Games v. Apple
Accepting Epic’s arguments and preventing Apple from continuing to operate its closed mobile ecosystem would eliminate a signature attractive feature of Apple’s products, to the detriment of consumer welfare, competition, and innovation.
March 28, 2022
Amicus Brief in the Matter of State of New York et al. v. Facebook
Facebook’s business justification for limiting platform access for rival app developers was self-evident: It did not want to help them replicate its core functions, nor did it want to share its intellectual property—certainly not for free. That is rational competition, not unlawful anticompetitive behavior.

Pages