ndmckinney|net

According to a number of news sources, the FTC stated today that it will not oppose the proposed acquisition of DoubleClick by Google. The proposed deal, at US$ 3.1 billion deal would make Google the largest internet advertising company in the world.

However, the European Commission has not yet ruled on whether or not Google’s proposed purchase of DoubleClick violates Article 139/2004 [rules on merger control]. A ruling on this is due by April 2008.

According to Friday’s Marketplace [American Public Media], the FDA will be given new powers to monitor pharmaceuticals once they’ve been released onto the market, but the new Senate bill does not go as far as some. According to the report, advertisers claim that marketing of pharmaceuticals is protected by the First Amendment.

How is advertising protected by the First Amendment? Certainly the Constitution looks to protect the individual from oppression by the government by prohibiting the banning of political speech. But how far should that protection go? Even political speech is not absolute, and the Supreme Court has spent generations trying to figure out just how far that protection should go.

It is undisputed that the Congress has the power to regulate business and commerce. But I find it highly suspect that the Congress intended to grant a greater protection to commercial and business speech than to political speech is ludicrous. Whatever the impact on commerce, commercial speech is not and should not be beyond the reach of the government.

[From Marketplace: FDA bill stops short of drug-ad bans]

The Court of First Instance (CFI) upheld the 2004 fine imposed by the European Commission today for an “abusing a dominant position” (Article 82 TEC). The Court upheld the previous decision holding that, once a dominant position is established, “the refusal by the holder of a dominant position to grant a licence may infringe Article 82 EC unless the refusal is objectively justified.” (Case T-201/04, para. 333). Microsoft will have to pay its € 497 million fine.

In English [IHT]
En français [Le Monde]

In a decision issued Monday, 6 August, an Indian court has rejected Novartis’ patent claims on Glivec. While Doctors Without Borders (MSF) claims that this is a “major victory” for accessibility of medicines in developing countries, I believe India is the only real winner in this case. Novartis was already subsidizing the use of Glivec in India for 99% of the patients who were undergoing treatment, so access to medicine was not the real issue.

I believe that the real issue in the case is not of access to medicine, as the court states, but of expropriation of a patent from Novartis (who had been issued a patent on the new application of Glivec in 49 other states) for the benefit of India’s large generic drug industry. Given the interest of the Indian government in this case, I believe that the rule of law was set aside for the benefit of national politics.

Unfortunately, this decision will give other developing countries (poor) justification to engage in similar expropriations of foreign pharmaceutical patents (if I’m not mistaken, Brazil is attempting to do the same to an HIV-treatment drug).

Note: I have a particular interest in this case, since I argued for Novartis in a moot court exercise at Erasmus University (although in the context of a WTO decision, not of an Indian national court).

Economist.com this week is reporting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts the cost to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a “safeish” level to be around 0.1% of GDP. Much of the solution, according to the Economist, is to simply improve efficiency in a number of areas, such as in business lighting and energy systems, solutions which have no cost to the consumer or taxpayer. The costs of non-fossil fuels power generation is falling dramatically, and gas-sipping technology for automobiles (sans the hybrid car fad) is readily available.

With the most costly targets rising to the level of an economic rounding error on the national economy, why is it that the more conservative governments are refusing to approach the solution? Perhaps the uncertainty in the models give polticians an excuse not to take action for fear of being wrong. Perhaps it is simply the strong lobby of the petroleum industry who is unwilling to alter their current business model. Whatever the source of the resistance, the political problem is far more difficult to overcome than the technical one.

But even the Economist, a tradtional source of liberal economic policy and opponent to governmental regulation, suggests that the solution is both laudable and feesible. While the models are uncertan, the IPCC reports that the costs are in the same sphere as of the current carbon-trading scheme, a system that, the Economist notes, “has not bankrupted the European economy so far.”

The evidence is growing that action is both necessary and feasible. The last major step is convincing the politicians that it necessary and appropraite.

The U.S. Mint is launching yet another one dollar coin, this time a series with all the presidential portraits. In case there is anyone out there who still thinks this might work this time, let me explain: no matter what patriotic figure you put on the coin, it will be a dismal failure in the United States.

At one time, we had dollar coins everywhere. The mythical silver dollar was a widespread piece of currency. The Eisenhower dollar, I think, was the downfall of the American dollar coin, since it was almost as big as the military-industrial complex that would follow it. Ever since then, the coin has been relegated to ridicule. Who exactly was Susan Bea Anthony, and why did we put this woman on this quarter?

The problems with the dollar coin today are quite numerous:

1. They’re heavy.
2. They’re too small, confusing with the quarter.
3. You can’t spend them anywhere.
4. There is a paper dollar that solves all the problems listed above.
5. The mint doesn’t make enough of these coins.

Currently, I live in Holland, where the one and two Euro coin is prominent. But here, the coin is much more practical. The laws of physics cannot change the fact that the coin is heavy, but the problem of it being distinct and useful seems to be solved. I think there are several reasons for this. First, there is a two Euro coin, and that does solve some of the weight issues. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the coin is useful. Not only is the coin useful for vending machines, but, as far as I’ve seen, it’s the only currency you can use in the vending machines. The paper euro (in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 20, and 500 Euro denominations) gets incrementally larger with its value, and I guess the machines don’t like to, or cannot, take them. Enter the coin. Finally, there are no one or two Euro notes, so you don’t get an alternative.

Personally, I can’t wait to get these things in circulation, but not for any practical reason. In 2009 (I’m speculating on the date), the Mint should be releasing the William Henry Harrison, or the “Harry”. President Harrison, as you may remember, was perhaps the most effective (read: least destructive) president in US history. He caught nasty cold on his inauguration and died within thirty days. 2008 candidates take note: the best policy is often to do nothing. (Sure, technically Harry did create a constitutional crisis regarding presidential succession, but he only did this after he died). But I digress. My goal is to single-handedly get the Harry into widespread circulation. My goal is to spread these things around like Johnny Appleseed, going from town to town (in the DC metro area, anyway) and spending these things like currency. Large coffee? That’ll be two Harry’s. Dinner for two at Nora? That’s one hundred and twenty Harry’s. Enter the weight problem again.

Seventh Circuit Judge and University of Chicago law professor Richard Posner writes that the future losses of delaying climate change outweigh the present value of cleaning up the problem.

In other words, solving this problem makes sound economic sense.

The New York Times is reporting that Milton Friedman has died at the age of 94.

Champion of the free market, Friedman has served the dismal science well over the years. He will be missed, even by Ronald Coase.

UPDATE: I would like to point out the different headlines used by the Times. The original headline (the one posted in this article): “Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-Winning Economist, Dies at 94” [AP Story]

The new headline: “Milton Friedman, a Leading Economist, Dies at 94” [NY Times Story]

I think the Times is not giving Mr Friedman credit he is due.