Research

Professor Ellen P. Goodman

Goodman Scholarship

• Smart City Ethics: The Challenge to Democratic Governance (forthcoming Oxford Handbook of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence)
• Urbanism Under Google: Lessons from Sidewalk Toronto, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 457 (2019) (with Julia Powles)
• The First Amendment Opportunism of Digital Platforms, German Marshall Fund (2019)
• Defining Equity in Algorithmic Change, Regulatory Review (2019)
• Algorithmic Transparency for Smart Cities, 20 Yale J. of Law & Tech. 103 (2018) (with Robert Brauneis)
• Four Ages of Public Media, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2017)
• Zero Rating and Equity at the Network’s Other Edge 15 Colo. Tech. L. J. 63 (2016)
• Atomic Age of Data:  Policies for the Internet of Things, Aspen Institute Report (2015)
• Anchor Institutions and Broadband Justice, 41 Fordham Urban L. J. 1665 (2014)
• Visual Gut Punch:  Persuasion, Emotion, and the Constitutional Meaning of Graphic Disclosure, 99 CORNELL L. REV. 513 (2014)
• Modeling Policy for Public Media, 24 HARV. J. OF LAW & TECH. 112 (2010) (with Anne H. Chen) 
• Digital Public Service Media Networks to Advance Broadband and Enrich Connected Communities,  9 J.TELECOM & HIGH TECH. L. 82 (2010) (with Anne H. Chen)
• Spectrum Auctions and the Public Interest, 7 J. TELECOM & HIGH TECH. L. 343(2009)
• No Time for Equal Time, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV.897 (2008) (symposium issue)   
• Free Speech and Media Policy:  The First Amendment at War With Itself, 35 HOFSTRA L. REV. 1211 (2007) (symposium issue)
• Peer Promotions and False Advertising Law, 58 S. CAR. L. REV. 683 (2007) (symposium issue)
• Stealth Marketing and Editorial Integrity, 85 TEX. L. REV. 83 (2006)
• Spectrum Equity, 41 J. TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 101(2005)
• Media Policy Out of the Box: Content Abundance, Attention Scarcity, and the Failures of Digital Markets, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1389 (2004)
• Spectrum Rights in the Telecosm to Come, 41 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 269 (2004) 
• Public Media Policy Reform and Digital Age Realities in Communications Law and Policy in the Digital Age: The Next Five Years (Randolph May ed.) (Carolina Academic 2012)
• Public Service Media Narratives in Handbook of Media Law and Policy: A Socio-Legal Exploration (Monroe E. Price & Stefaan G. Verhulst, ed.)(Routledge 2012)
• FCC, Information Needs of Communities (2011) (principal author of 50 page nonprofit media section)
• Spectrum Policy and the Public Interest in Television Goes Digital (Darcy Gerbarg ed., 2009)
• Public Service Media 2.0 in … And Communications for All:  A Policy Agenda for a New Administration (Amit M. Schejter ed., 2009)
• Public Television and Pluralistic Ideals in The Future of Public Service Broadcasting (Tim Gardam & David Levy ed., 2008)
• Spectrum Sharing and Spectrum Efficiency in A Framework for a National Broadband Policy (Aspen Institute 2008)
• Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance in Media Diversity and Localism:  Meanings and Metrics (Philip M. Napoli ed., 2006)
• Tender Justice: Judge Shapiro’s Hard-Headed Humanity, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 25 (2003)
• Bargains in the Information Marketplace: The Use of Government Subsidies to Regulate New Media, 1 J. TELECOM. & HIGH TECH. L. 217 (2002)
• Digital Television and the Allure of Auctions: The Birth and Stillbirth of DTV Legislation, 49 FED. COMM. L.J. 517 (1997)

Goodman Public Communication

• Dueling Platform Policies and Free Speech Online, Constitution Center We The People Podcast (Nov. 2019)
• Facebook, Free Speech, and Political Advertising, WHYY Radio Times Podcast, (Nov. 2019)
• The More Outrageous the Lie, the Better it is for Facebook’s Bottom Line, The Los Angeles Times (Nov. 2019) (with Karen Kornbluh)
• How Facebook Shot Themselves in the Foot in their Elizabeth Warren Spat, The Guardian (Oct. 2019) (with Karen Kornbluh)
• How to Regulate the Internet(with Karen Kornbluh), Project Syndicate (7/10/19)
• Bringing Truth to the Internet, Democracy Journal (Summer 2019, No. 53) (with Karen Kornbluh)
• Curb its Enthusiasm: As Sidewalk Labs Moves Fast in Toronto, Pay Attention to the Streets, The Globe and Mail (6/4/19)
• Reviving the Personal Attack Rule for Digital Platforms is Not a Good Idea, Protego Press (5/28/19)
• Facebook’s Moment for Thought Leadership Has Passed, Protego Press  (4/2/19)
• So Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Repent for Facebook’s Sins? He Can Start Here, The Guardian (Oct. 2017)
• Facebook Should Consider Subsidizing and Promoting Local News, Slate (Dec. 2016)
• Facebook and Google: Most Powerful and Secretive Empires We’ve Ever Known, The Guardian (Sept. 2016) (with Julia Powles)
• Self-Driving Cars:  Overlooking Data Privacy is a Crash Waiting to Happen, The Guardian (June 2016)
• Big Pharma, Tobacco, Tech., – How the First Amendment is Being Abused, The Guardian (Mar. 2016)
• India’s Ban on Facebook’s Free Service is an Overreaction, The Guardian  (Feb. 2016)

 

Professor Michael Carrier

• Antitrust, Market Exclusivity, and Transparency in the Pharmaceutical Industry (with Michael S. Sinha and Greg D. Curfman, 319 JAMA 2271 (2018), available here
• Biologics: The New Antitrust Frontier (with Carl J. Minniti III), 2018 University of Illinois Law Review 1 (forthcoming 2018), available here
• Five Actions to Stop Citizen Petition Abuse, 118 Columbia Law Review Online 81 (2018), available here
• The Curious Case of Wellbutrin: How the Third Circuit Mistook Itself for the Supreme Court, 103 Cornell Law Review Online 137 (2018), available here
• William Howard Taft Lecture: The Rule of Reason in the Post-Actavis World, 2018 Columbia Business Law Review 26 (2018)
• Sharing, Samples, and Generics: An Antitrust Framework, 103 Cornell Law Review 1 (2017), available here
• Five Solutions to the REMS Patent Problem (with Brenna Sooy), 97 Boston University Law Review 1661 (2017), available here
• Using Antitrust Law to Challenge Turing’s Daraprim Price Increase (with Nicole Levidow and Aaron S. Kesselheim), 31 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1379 (2017), available here
• The Untold EpiPen Story: How Mylan Hiked Prices by Blocking Rivals (with Carl J. Minniti III), 102 Cornell Law Review Online 53 (2017), available here
• Citizen Petitions: Long, Late-Filed, and At-Last Denied (with Carl J. Minniti III), 66 American University Law Review 305 (2016), available here
• Product Hopping: A New Framework (with Steve Shadowen), 92 Notre Dame Law Review 167 (2016), available here
• Pharmaceutical Antitrust: What the Trump Administration Can Do, Concurrences: Competition Law Review 63 (No. 4, 2016), available here
• Pleading Standards: The Hidden Threat to Actavis, 91 N.Y.U. L. Rev. Online 31 (2016), available here
• Why “Large and Unjustified Payment” Is Not a Threshold Under Actavis, 91 Washington Law Review 109 (2016) (symposium), available here
• Strategies that Delay or Prevent the Timely Availability of Affordable Generic Drugs in the United States (with Gregory H. Jones, Richard T. Silver, & Hagop Kantarjian), 127 Blood (journal published by the American Society of Hematology) 1398 (2016), available here
• The “Equity of the Statute” and Copyright Law: Three Critiques, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 377 (2015) (response to Shyamkrishna Balganesh & Gideon Parchomovsky, Equity’s Unstated Domain: The Role of Equity in Shaping Copyright Law, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1859 (2015)), available here
• How Not to Apply the Rule of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, 114 Michigan Law Review First Impressions 73 (2015), available here
• Eight Reasons Why “No-Authorized-Generic” Promises Constitute Payment, 67 Rutgers University Law Review 697 (2015) (symposium), available here
• After Actavis: Seven Ways Forward, 67 Rutgers University Law Review 543 (2015) (symposium)
• O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association: Why the Ninth Circuit Should Not Block the Floodgates of Change in College Athletics (with Chris Sagers) (response to Marc Edelman, The District Court Decision in O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association: A Small Step Forward for College-Athletes, and a Gateway for Far Grander Change, 71 Washington and Lee Law Review Online 299 (2015)) (symposium), available here
• How Not To Apply Actavis, 109 Northwestern University Law Review Online 113 (2015), available here
• No, RIAA, It’s Not the End of the World for Musicians, 83 UMKC Law Review 287 (2014) (symposium), available here
• Payment After Actavis, 100 Iowa Law Review 7 (2014), available here
• Pharmaceutical Antitrust Complexity, Competition Policy International (Vol. 10, No. 2, 2014) (symposium), available here
• What You Need to Know About Standard Essential Patents, Competition Policy International (Vol. 8, No. 2, 2014), available here
• Limelight v. Akamai: Limiting Induced Infringement, 2014 Wisconsin Law Review online 1, available here
• Only “Scraping” the Surface: The Copyright Hole in the FTC’s Google Settlement, 46 University of British Columbia Law Review 759 (2014) (symposium), available here
• A Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play A Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements, 15 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 31 (2014) (symposium), available here
• Five Arguments Laid to Rest After Actavis, 13 Antitrust Source 1 (2013), available here
• Google and Antitrust: Five Approaches to an Evolving Issue, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Occasional Paper Series (July 2013), available here
• Copyright and Innovation: Responses to Marks, Masnick, and Picker, 2013 Wisconsin Law Review Online 46, available here
• Increasing Innovation Through Copyright Common Sense and Better Government Policy, 62 Emory Law Journal 983 (2013) (symposium), available here
• Patent Assertion Entities: Six Actions the Antitrust Agencies Can Take, Competition Policy International: Antitrust Chronicle (Vol. 1 No. 2, 2013), available here
• SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP: An Alphabet Soup of Innovation-Stifling Copyright Legislation and Agreements, 11 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 21 (2013) (symposium), available here
• Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story, 2012 Wisconsin Law Review 891, available here
• Citizen Petitions: An Empirical Study (with D. Wander), 34 Cardozo Law Review 249 (2012), available here
• Why the “Scope of the Patent” Test Cannot Solve the Drug Settlement Problem, 16 Stanford Technology Law Review 1 (2012), available here
• A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing, Competition Policy International: Antitrust Chronicle (Vol. 4 No. 2, 2012) (solicited), available here
• A Tort-Based Causation Framework for Antitrust Analysis, 77 Antitrust Law Journal 991 (2011) (symposium), available here.
• Post-Grant Opposition: A Proposal and a Comparison to the America Invents Act, 45 U.C. Davis Law Review 103 (2011), available here
• An Antitrust Framework for Climate Change, 9 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 513 (2011), available here
• A Real-World Analysis of Pharmaceutical Settlements: The Missing Dimension of Product-Hopping, 62 Florida Law Review 1009 (2010), available here
• Innovation for the 21st Century: A Response to Seven Critics, 61 Alabama Law Review 597 (2010) (symposium), available here
• Solving the Drug Settlement Problem: The Legislative Approach, 40 Rutgers Law Journal 83 (2010) (symposium), available here 
• The Pirate Bay, Grokster, and Google, 15 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 7 (2010) (solicited), available here
• Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework for Presumptive Illegality, 108 Michigan Law Review 37 (2009), available here
• The Rule of Reason in the 21st Century, 16 George Mason Law Review 827 (2009) (symposium), available here
• Two Puzzles Resolved: Of the Schumpeter-Arrow Stalemate and Pharmaceutical Innovation Markets, 93 Iowa Law Review 393 (2008), available here
• Why Modularity Does Not (and Should Not) Explain Intellectual Property, 116 Yale Law Journal Pocket Part 95 (2007) (solicited), available here
• Against Cyberproperty, 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1485 (2007) (with Greg Lastowka), available here
• Pictures at the New Economy Exhibition: Why the Antitrust Modernization Commission Got it (Mostly) Right, 38 Rutgers Law Journal 473 (2007) (symposium), available here
• Of Trinko, Tea Leaves, and Intellectual Property, 31 Journal of Corporation Law 357 (2006) (symposium), available here
• Vote Counting, Technology, and Unintended Consequences, 79 St. John’s Law Review 645 (2005), available here 
• Cabining Intellectual Property Through a Property Paradigm, 54 Duke Law Journal 1 (2004), available here
• Resolving the Patent-Antitrust Paradox Through Tripartite Innovation, 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 1047 (2003), available here
• Why Antitrust Should Defer to the Intellectual Property Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: A Commentary on Teece & Sherry, 87 Minnesota Law Review 2019 (2003), available here 
• Antitrust After the Interception: Of a Heroic Returner and Myriad Paths, 55 Stanford Law Review 287 (2002) [Review of Richard Posner, Antitrust Law (2d ed. 2001)], available here
• Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox, 150 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 761 (2002), available here
• The Real Rule of Reason: Bridging the Disconnect, 1999 Brigham Young University Law Review 1265 (1999), available here 

 

Testimony

• IP and Competition: Context, Test, and Balance, comments on The role of intellectual property and competition policy in promoting innovation, FTC hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21^st Century, https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2018/08/15/comment-ftc-2018-0055-d-0005
• Essential Changes to Shared REMS, July 2018 comments to proposed FDA regulations:
• Guidance for Industry Waivers of the Single, Shared System REMS Requirement, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2018-D-1043-0003 and
• Draft Guidance for Industry Development of a Shared System REMS, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2018-D-1041-0003
• High Prices & No Excuses: 6 Anticompetitive Games, Federal Trade Commission workshop on “Understanding Competition in Prescription Drug Markets,” November 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3066514
•  Statement on “Antitrust Concerns and the FDA Approval Process,” Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, July 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008227
• Four Proposals to Enhance Generic Competition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing on “The Hatch-Waxman Amendments: Ensuring a Balance between Innovation and Access,” July 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3003969
• Comments on Proposed Update on Intellectual Property Licensing Guidelines, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission, August 2016, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2833348
•  Eliminate Statutory Damages for Secondary Infringers, Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force Comment, January 2014, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/carrier_post-meeting_comments.pdf
• Statement on “Pay-for-Delay Deals: Limiting Competition and Costing Consumers,” Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, July 2013,
• http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=f4106739eddbae64611e52656baee009&wit_id=f4106739eddbae64611e52656baee009-0-7
• Antitrust Enforcement and Trolls, Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop, December 2012, http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/pae/pae-0002.pdf
• IP Enforcement Can’t Whack Every Mole but Can Stifle Technological Innovation,
• U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, August 2012, http://infojustice.org/archives/26891
•  An Important, but Incomplete, Notice of Inquiry on Copyright and Innovation, National Telecommunications and Information Administration Inquiry on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy Docket # 100910448-0448-01, November 2010,
• http://ssl.ntia.doc.gov/comments/100910448-0448-01/comment.cfm?e=A0B285F6-F5A9-4E51-867C-4DF688AB3458
• Innovation and Copyright: The Neglected Relationship, and Supplemental Remarks on Innovation/Copyright Hearings, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, The Impact of Copyright Policy on Innovation in the Digital Era, October 2010,
• http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/step/copyrightpolicy/PGA_066845