RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

Recent disputes between the United States and China have focused on trade, but perhaps the most potent trade-related issue is not tangible products but intangible property. China's policies and practices involving intellectual property reveal a plan for luring investment and innovation to China for economic advantage.On this live podcast, world-renowned experts in intellectual property and China's policies discuss whether this constitutes a violation of international norms, and what, if anything, the United States should be doing about it.Featuring:- Mark Cohen, Director and Senior Fellow, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California at Berkeley- Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit- Hon. Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Honorary Professor, Tsinghua University- [Moderator] Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Data portability has been a hot topic of late, from GDPR to CCPA to the FTC's recent Data to Go Workshop. To some, data portability is a consumer right to access and move individual data. For others, data portability means the sharing of larger swaths of data with other services and platforms to lower entry barriers to effective competition.Although both forms of portability aim to enhance consumer welfare and increase competition, data portability raises a host of issues, such as privacy protection, data security, and intellectual property rights. Additionally, there is evidence that data portability mandates, when used as a competition remedy, is costly, ineffective, and may reduce business incentives, and could entrench incumbents by making it difficult for smaller competitors to change their services and modernize their products.This comes as many competition agencies and legislatures alike are considering interoperability and data portability mandates to increase competition. And, Congress is set to release a report with recommendations for reducing the market power of online platforms, which may include these mandates.The Regulatory Transparency Project explored the hot topic of data portability over the course of a two-part virtual panel series entitled, "Data Portability Mandates, Consumer Privacy Protections, and Competition Law." The first panel discussed the consumer protection and privacy implications of data portability, and this panel turned to the use of portability and interoperability mandates in competition law.Featuring:- Jay Ezrielev, Founder and Managing Principal, Elevecon LLC- Bruce Hoffman, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP- Alex Petros, Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge- [Moderator] Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live — a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The last of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Food, took place on October 1st, 2020.Over the next 30 years, our global population is expected to grow by more than 2 billion people to 9 billion people inhabiting this planet. How will we feed a rapidly growing population with decreased land and water resources and increased attention to animal welfare and the environment? Is that even possible? The panelists explored the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:- John Mackey, Co-Founder and CEO, Whole Foods Market- Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture- Josh Tetrick, Co-Founder and CEO, Eat Just, Inc.- [Moderator] Anastasia P. Boden, Attorney, Economic Liberty Project, Pacific Legal FoundationVisit our website — www.RegProject.org — to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Data portability has been a hot topic of late, from GDPR to CCPA to the FTC’s recent Data to Go Workshop. To some, data portability is a consumer right to access and move individual data. For others, data portability means the sharing of larger swaths of data with other services and platforms to lower entry barriers to effective competition.Although both forms of portability aim to enhance consumer welfare and increase competition, data portability raises a host of issues, such as privacy protection, data security, and intellectual property rights. Additionally, there is evidence that data portability mandates, when used as a competition remedy, is costly, ineffective, and may reduce business incentives, and could entrench incumbents by making it difficult for smaller competitors to change their services and modernize their products.This comes as many competition agencies and legislatures alike are considering interoperability and data portability mandates to increase competition. And, Congress is set to release a report with recommendations for reducing the market power of online platforms, which may include these mandates.The Regulatory Transparency Project explored the hot topic of data portability over the course of a two-part virtual panel series entitled, "Data Portability Mandates, Consumer Privacy Protections, and Competition Law." This panel discussed the consumer protection and privacy implications of data portability, and the second panel turned to the use of portability and interoperability mandates in competition law.Featuring:- Peter Swire, Elizabeth and Thomas Holder Chair and Professor of Law and Ethics, Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology- Liad Wagman, Professor of Economics, Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology- Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna, Senior Counsel, Future of Privacy Forum- [Moderator] Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTAVisit our website –www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Jennifer Huddleston and Ashkhen Kazaryan break down the recent news related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, including Justice Clarence Thomas's statement, controversy over Twitter and Facebook's moderation practices, and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's announcement on rulemaking related to the law.Featuring:- Jennifer Huddleston, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, American Action Forum- Ashkhen Kazaryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedomVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The third of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Earth, took place on September 24th, 2020.By 2050, 9 billion humans will share this planet and how we protect it is one of the most important questions of our time. How will we ensure that we can adapt to a changing climate, that we will all have access to clean air and fresh water, and that habitats are protected? While these goals have notable public support, reasonable people differ on the best methods to protect the environment. Are there more effective and less burdensome ways to accomplish these vital goals? The panelists explored the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:- James W. Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law- David Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council- Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions- Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- [Moderator] Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On October 7, 2020, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania Student Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project co-sponsored an event on "Antitrust Populism and the Conservative Movement."During the 1986 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for then-Judge Antonin Scalia, he was asked about his views on antitrust. "In law school, I never understood [antitrust law]," Scalia explained, "I later found out, in reading the writings of those who now do understand it, that I should not have understood it because it did not make any sense then." Some contend that the much-needed coherency in antitrust law was brought about by the Chicago School revolution and the adoption of the consumer welfare standard.Today, Robert Bork's consumer welfare paradigm faces challenges. Antitrust law is back at a political crossroads, with both sides calling for a politicized approach to address problems such as anti-conservative bias, economic and racial inequality, and a whole host of other issues, while focusing on slogans and labels rather than relevant economic and legal questions. Additionally, some experts argue that the economic consequences of many of the recent proposals would make the American economy and consumers substantially worse off across a wide array of industries. At the same time, today's antitrust debate underscores some interesting rifts and tension within both political parties, serving as an interesting microcosm of broader political dynamics.Featuring:-Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for Justice-Herbert Hovenkamp, James G. Dinan University Professor, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Recent weeks have been chock-full of headlines regarding antitrust and big tech companies, from the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee report to the Senate Commerce Committee subpoenas of top CEOs. In this episode, Neil Chilson breaks down these recent developments and discusses how they fit into the broader picture of antitrust law in the United States.Featuring:- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The second of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Health, took place on September 17th, 2020.We are in the throes of a global pandemic that threatens the lives of millions and the way of life for billions more. Our healthcare systems are stretched to their limits. At the same time, innovations are being developed that could move us from treatments to outright cures. How do we ensure that these advancements are safe and effective, but not needlessly delayed when we need them most? The panelists explored the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:- Julie Allickson, Chief Manufacturing Development Center Officer, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine- Betsy McCaughey, Chairman, Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths- Joshua Sharfstein, Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University- Dan Troy, Chief Business Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, and General Counsel, Valo- [Moderator] Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed retaining both the existing particulate matter and ozone primary and secondary standards. Over the last several decades, air quality in the United States has improved dramatically. Though many have advocated for more stringent PM and ozone standards, the environmental and public health imperative for tighter standards is the subject of debate. Unlike in the past, the agency was able to finish the review of these criteria pollutants within the five-year statutory window. What was the basis for retaining these standards, how did the agency review the standards in such a timely fashion, and are these actions supported by the best available science? What are the arguments for and against these proposed actions? And are these standards, if finalized, likely to withstand judicial review? Experts discuss these and other critical questions.Featuring:- Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC- [Moderator] Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage FoundationVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.