Publications

  • Print
  • Share
  • Questions

Preview of Volume 28: Issue 2

The Value of Cablevision and Its Implications on International Copyright Law and the Internet — Ernesto Falcon

Tina MirzazadehThis comment explores the United State's international obligations under the Berne Convention and WIPO Copyright Treaty as cloud computing expands into television services. It provides a background on the public performance and reproduction right and its interactions with Internet technologies, reviews the Second Circuit's Cablevision decision, and analyzes the recent decision by the Supreme Court with the Internet start up Aereo. The comment concludes that a departure between the EU and US jurisprudence regarding copyright is approaching and recommends revisiting current international obligations in light of the economic benefits of increased Internet distribution.

 

 

Discrimination in the Name of Secularism: A Ban on Religious symbols in Quebec — Tina Mirzazadeh

Tina MirzazadehThis comment discusses the emergence of the Québec Charter of Values, a bill which proposed to ban all conspicuous religious symbols for those working in or dealing with the Québec government. The comment compares and contrasts the proposed bill to a similar law in Berlin, Germany and assesses the constitutionality of the two pieces of legislation under Canadian and German constitutional law as well as international law. The comment concludes with a recommendation that outlines the requirements that the Québec government must meet to draft a similar bill that complies with both the Canadian constitution and international law.

Idea Merchants and Paradigm Peddlers in Global Antitrust

In its upcoming Volume 28, PM Globe is honored to publish Idea Merchants and Paradigm Peddlers in Global Antitrust, by Professor Mel Marquis.

About the Author

Professor Mel Marquis, Ph.D., LL.M, J.D., B.A. is Part-time Professor of Law and Co-Director of the European Union Competition Law and Policy Workshop at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. He is also the Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Rome Antitrust Forum. He has been a professor in the Economics Faculty of the University of Verona and he is currently a Visiting Professor at LUMSA University in Rome (Faculty of Law) and at Renmin University Law School in Beijing.

Professor Marquis was recently nominated for the Best Antitrust Writing Award for a third consecutive year. With the close involvement of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the contest is organized by Concurrences, a law journal dedicated to EU and national antitrust law.

The Article: A Synopsis

In his article, Professor Marquis offers extensive scholarship in support of his argument that "[i]n the global field of antitrust law, policy paradigms are pushed and pulled by forces analogous to those of the market. Policy entrepreneurs (typically competition law agencies) operate in a setting where, notwithstanding various cooperative platforms, competition and rivalry occur and manifest themselves in a number of dimensions." Without denying inter-agency cooperation in a variety of forms, he asserts that "competition enforcers across jurisdictions compete among themselves on a global market ..." in order to gain, in metaphorical terms, "market share."

Professor Marquis identifies the United States, the former European Economic Community, and Germany as being, historically, the key market players. Today, it is the U.S. and the EU that figure most prominently. However, he explains that "there is a growing field of other significant players, and a general dynamism in the market for market governance." He then elaborates upon some of the manifold "arenas" or "modes" through which these players compete. Specifically, he explores in detail how the players pursue competition through competing visions of a global framework for antitrust law, bilateral relations and agreements, and regional relationships. Professor Marquis also sheds light on the interesting dynamics of competition between the American and European approaches to competition in this field.

Although Professor Marquis does not dwell upon "the normative desirability of global yardstick competition among rival agencies," he takes the positive impact of competitive pressure as given, noting that an alternative approach "would promise little, if any dynamism, adaptability or motivation for innovation and agency self-improvement."