Panel Video on The Common Purposes of IP and Antitrust

Earlier today, I joined the Committee for Justice’s Ashley Baker along with Law Professor Kristen Osenga for a virtual panel discussion on "The Common Purposes of Intellectual Property and Antitrust." Video of the panel, which runs about an hour, is now available online. The panel discussion addressed the differences between intellectual property rights – such as copyrights and patent rights – from harmful monopolies. Along the way, the panel also delved into the role of administration in IP rights, legislative proposals for changing antitrust law, and the merits of the consumer welfare standard. 

My initial comments during CFJ's panel parallel my April 7 Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper titled "The Property Rights View of Copyrights Beats Bogus Monopoly Talk" and a short item I posted on April 9 at the Federalist Society's blog titled "Copyrights are Property Rights, Not Harmful Monopolies." Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I wrote a book chapter with the same name as the CFJ panel in our book Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age: Constitutional Foundations for Reform (Carolina Academic Press, 2020). 

A Look at Set-Top Box Prices Shows No Monopoly Power

In a Forbes article, on February 15, 2016, Progressive Policy Institute Economist Hal Singer debunks the FCC’s theory that the market for set-top boxes is a monopoly. He says that small providers with few market shares often charge more for set-top box rentals than large providers with many market shares. For example, TiVo charges between $299.99 and $599.99 upfront for a DVR and 1 year of service, but Comcast charges only $9.99 a month for a DVR. Mr. Singer says that the realities of the marketplace are the opposite of the FCC’s theory because monopoly prices should increase with market power, not decrease.