Breaking Up Google Isn’t Nearly Enough; The New York Times, August 27, 2024

Julia Angwin , The New York Times; Breaking Up Google Isn’t Nearly Enough

"Competitors need access to something else that Google monopolizes: data about our searches. Why? Think of Google as the library of our era; it’s the first stop we go to when seeking information. Anyone who wants to build a rival library needs to know what readers are looking for in order to stock the right books. They also need to know which books are most popular, and which ones people return quickly because they’re no good."

It’s Copyright Week 2020: Stand Up for Copyright Laws That Actually Serve Us All; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 20, 2020

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It’s Copyright Week 2020: Stand Up for Copyright Laws That Actually Serve Us All

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation...

We continue to fight for a version of copyright that does what it is supposed to. And so, every year, EFF and a number of diverse organizations participate in Copyright Week. Each year, we pick five copyright issues to highlight and advocate a set of principles of copyright law. This year’s issues are:

• Monday: Fair Use and Creativity
  Copyright policy should encourage creativity, not hamper it. Fair use makes it possible for us to comment, criticize, and rework our common culture.
• Tuesday: Copyright and Competition
  Copyright should not be used to control knowledge, creativity, or the ability to tinker with or repair your own devices. Copyright should encourage more people to share, make, or repair things, rather than concentrate that power in only a few players.
• Wednesday: Remedies
  Copyright claims should not raise the specter of huge, unpredictable judgments that discourage important uses of creative work. Copyright should have balanced remedies that also provide a real path for deterring bad-faith claims.
• Thursday: The Public Domain
  The public domain is our cultural commons and a crucial resource for innovation and access to knowledge. Copyright should strive to promote, and not diminish, a robust, accessible public domain.
• Friday: Copyright and Democracy
  Copyright must be set through a participatory, democratic, and transparent process. It should not be decided through back-room deals, secret international agreements, unaccountable bureaucracies, or unilateral attempts to apply national laws extraterritorially.

Every day this week, we’ll be sharing links to blog posts and actions on these topics at https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek and at #CopyrightWeek on Twitter.

As we said last year, and the year before that, if you too stand behind these principles, please join us by supporting them, sharing them, and telling your lawmakers you want to see copyright law reflect them."

F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It; New York Times, April 29, 2017

Editorial Board, New York Times; 

F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It

"Under Mr. Pai’s proposal, broadband companies would probably use their gatekeeping position to give themselves a leg up. AT&T, for example, already encourages people to buy the streaming video service of its DirecTV subsidiary by allowing customers to watch it on AT&T’s wireless network without incurring data charges. Verizon and Comcast have similar practices. Over time, such corporate policies will make it harder for smaller companies to compete with the telecom giants.

Big internet businesses like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Netflix will probably be fine under Mr. Pai’s plans, because they are well established and have the money to cut special deals with broadband companies.

Smaller firms and start-ups — some of which may never get started — will not be as lucky.

Ultimately, though, the real losers will be all Americans, because there will be fewer choices and less innovation."

The Strange Case of Off-Patent Drug Price Gougers; Bloomberg, 9/9/16

Justin Fox, Bloomberg; The Strange Case of Off-Patent Drug Price Gougers:

"There’s a conflict at the heart of pharmaceutical pricing in the U.S.: On the one hand, it’s in the public’s interest for pharma companies to get a good return on the huge investments they often make in developing new drugs. On the other, it’s in the public’s interest to be able to afford those drugs.

We try to resolve this by granting companies temporary monopolies (aka patents) on the drugs they develop -- letting them effectively set the price unilaterally -- but then allowing competition from generic substitutes once the patents expire...

What’s going on, basically, is that a new breed of pharmaceutical company has emerged (Valeant is, or at least was, the archetype) that doesn’t develop drugs but identifies business opportunities in existing drugs --many of them with expired patents -- that the previous owners were too lazy or timid or decent to fully exploit. So they acquire them, and jack up the prices."