Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Algorithms and Antitrust
Generally speaking, algorithms are procedures for solving mathematical problems in a systematized finite number of steps. In contemporary economic settings, algorithms involve technologies that, by aggregating and sorting through historical data, help service providers better understand market pricing in their respective industries. They have become instrumental to the modern-day digital economy. Market sectors such as the car rental industry, hotels, property managers, and even the government (i.e., for toll roads) are a few of the many economic actors presently utilizing algorithms that better serve their customers, ensure fair and reasonable pricing, and prevent excessive shortages and surpluses.
The economic benefits realized from generative AI are nothing short of astounding. Some estimates predict it will increase global gross domestic product by nearly $7 trillion and productivity growth by a full 1.5% over the next 10 years. That is why it is so concerning that the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and a small choir of members of Congress seem intent on regulating algorithms away from the economy on antitrust grounds.
The action they have recently taken against RealPage, a software company whose algorithm helps inform property managers' pricing decisions, might be the first example of Washington's crusade against this technology, but more actions against similarly profiled algorithms will undoubtedly follow. The officials and politicians in question should become more informed and ultimately reconsider their stance. They are alleging with little facts that a company that provides statistical data to landlords is somehow violating antitrust laws violations. That is not how antitrust laws work. Data collection and prediction is not violative of any laws. In the end, consumers and the rest of society will suffer in the absence of these valuable AI-generative tools and others like it in other sectors.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.