The Institutions of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Comments for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Possible Competition Policy Reforms

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
William E. Kovacic
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Judiciary Committee ◽  
House Judiciary Committee ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals Washington Hotline

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (8) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Carrie Russell
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Policy Study ◽  
Great Idea ◽  
Judiciary Committee ◽  
Small Claims ◽  
House Judiciary Committee ◽  
The U.S

The CASE Act makes its way through CongressSounds like a great idea: providing a venue to litigate small claims of copyright infringement so rights holders with limited resources can avoid the costs and extensive time necessary to bring a federal lawsuit. In fact, this is what the U.S. Copyright Office proposed in its 2013 policy study “Remedies for Copyright Small Claims,” requested by the House Judiciary Committee.

Some Key Issues Concerning Further Development of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang Xianlin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Industrial Policy ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Strict Compliance ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Further Development

Since the Anti-Monopoly Law was enforced in China more than eight years ago, important achievements have occurred, as well as challenges for further development. In addition to challenges relating to amending legislation, strengthening enforcement, improving the judicial process, and ensuring strict compliance, etc, there are four issues that will be focused on here, namely: taking monopoly industries as a breakthrough to further promote the enforcement of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (both administrative and civil antitrust enforcement should focus on prominent monopolistic conducts in typical monopoly industries); properly handling the coordination between industrial policy and competition policy; promoting the cooperation between the Anti-Monopoly Law and intellectual property law; and cultivating China’s competition culture.

Theory in closer contact with industrial life: American institutional economists on competition theory and policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Panhans ◽  
Reinhard Schumacher
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Mainstream Economic ◽  
Competition Theory ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Experimental Attitude

Abstract This paper investigates the views on competition theory and policy of the American institutional economists during the first half of the 20th century. These perspectives contrasted with those of contemporary neoclassical and later mainstream economic approaches. We identify three distinct dimensions to an institutionalist perspective on competition. First, institutionalist approaches focused on describing industry details, so as to bring theory into closer contact with reality. Second, institutionalists emphasized that while competition was sometimes beneficial, it could also be disruptive. Third, institutionalists had a broad view of the objectives of competition policy that extended beyond effects on consumer welfare. Consequently, institutionalists advocated for a wide range of policies to enhance competition, including industrial self-regulation, broad stakeholder representation within corporations, and direct governmental regulations. Their experimental attitude implied that policy would always be evolving, and antitrust enforcement might be only one stage in the development toward a regime of industrial regulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document