Skip to content
ITIF Logo
ITIF Search
Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy

Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy

The Schumpeterian perspective represents a new intellectual framework for antitrust reforms that focus less on competition for competition's sake and more on enabling firm dynamic capabilities to power productivity, innovation and global competitiveness. The Schumpeter Project’s mission is to advance dynamic competition policy with boosting firm dynamic capabilities as a central concern for antitrust enforcement. (Read more.)

Featured Publications

A Cautionary Briefing for Korea’s New KFTC Chair: Why Platform Regulation Needs a Rethink

A Cautionary Briefing for Korea’s New KFTC Chair: Why Platform Regulation Needs a Rethink

Korea’s incoming KFTC leadership should oppose reviving ex ante platform regulation. Such rules are unnecessary, rest on flawed premises, and would weaken both innovation and strategic alliances.

Written Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee Regarding Europe’s Threat to Speech and Innovation

Written Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee Regarding Europe’s Threat to Speech and Innovation

EU regulatory regimes discriminate against leading U.S. tech firms, chill innovation and the liberties that underlie a culture of freedom, encourage copycat regulations around the world, and undermine the West’s competitiveness against China.

Amicus Brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Support of the Appellant in Epic Games v. Google

Amicus Brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Support of the Appellant in Epic Games v. Google

Rehearing is not only permissible but warranted in this exceptionally important case. It is necessary to reconcile this Court’s antitrust rulings on the robust nature of competition in the highly dynamic mobile gaming space.

Amicus Brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Support of the Appellant in Epic Games v. Apple

Amicus Brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Support of the Appellant in Epic Games v. Apple

By foreclosing Apple from charging a commission for linked transactions, the district court inexplicably decided to prohibit Apple from engaging in unilateral pricing conduct that was not—and cannot be—found to violate the antitrust laws.

Comments to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Regarding Anticompetitive Regulations

Comments to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Regarding Anticompetitive Regulations

While targeted rules and regulations which address real market failures and improve the status quo can be defensible, there are many that do not benefit competition or consumers and should likely be rescinded.

More Publications

Events

September 23, 2025|Register Now

DOJ v. Google: The Remedies Decision and the Future of Search

Please join ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy for a virtual panel with top experts who will discuss the landmark Google Search decision, its implications for the future of search, and what it means for Google as its antitrust battles with the DOJ continue.

June 26, 2025

FTC v. Meta: Takeaways From a Landmark Trial

Watch this virtual panel with top experts who discussed this important decision, its implications for the social media landscape, and what it means for Meta as the Trump administration continues its antitrust crusade against “Big Tech.”

May 19, 2025

The DOJ v. Google Ad Tech Decision: Did the Court Get It Right?

Watch this virtual webinar featuring experts who discussed this important decision, its implications for the ad tech space, and what it means for Google as its antitrust battles with the DOJ escalate.

April 16, 2025

The DMA’s Annual Review: A Global Perspective on Digital Competition Regulation

Watch the virtual discussion featuring experts from diverse regulatory landscapes unpack the DMA’s real-world impact, analyze global trends in digital regulation, and evaluate whether ex-ante rules are the right path forward for competition.

April 10, 2025

The DOJ v. Google Saga Continues: What’s at Stake in the Search Remedies Trial?

Watch now for a virtual panel with top experts who will discussed the key issues going to trial, the implications for Google and the future of search, and what the case means for U.S. antitrust law and the broader “big tech” debate.

More Events

Giorgio Castiglia
Giorgio Castiglia

Economic Policy Analyst

Read Bio
Joseph V. Coniglio
Joseph V. Coniglio

Director, Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Read Bio
Hadi Houalla
Hadi Houalla

Research Assistant

Read Bio
Lilla Nóra Kiss
Lilla Nóra Kiss

Senior Policy Analyst

Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy

Read Bio

Philippe Aghion
Philippe Aghion

Professor

College de France, LSE, & INSEAD

Read Bio
Christopher G. Caine
Christopher G. Caine

President

The Center for Global Enterprise

Read Bio
Richard Gilbert
Richard Gilbert

Professor Emeritus

UC Berkeley

Read Bio
David Kappos
David Kappos

Partner

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Read Bio
Maureen Ohlhausen
Maureen Ohlhausen

Partner; Former Acting Chairman

Wilson Sonsini; FTC

Read Bio
David Teece
David Teece

Executive Chairman

Berkeley Research Group

Read Bio

More From the Center

September 18, 2025|Blogs

Breakdown, Not Breakup: Taking Stock of the Google Remedies Decision

While Judge Mehta’s opinion may be one small step forward for Google, it is one giant leap toward defeating the neo-Brandeisians’ agenda to break up Big Tech.

September 3, 2025|Testimonies & Filings

Comments to the European Commission Regarding Mergers Regulation

The focus of the guidelines is to help assess whether a merger would significantly impede effective competition or create or strengthen a dominant position. Unfortunately, this structural understanding of competition differs from a conception of competition as either a dynamic process or a consumer welfare proscription, both of which are far better suited to having a productive and growing economy.

August 20, 2025|Testimonies & Filings

Comments to the UK Competition and Markets Authority Regarding Its Strategic Market Status Investigation Into Google’s Mobile Platform

ITIF disagrees with the Competition and Markets Authority's provisional findings that Google's mobile platform has Strategic Market Status and that there are high barriers to entry and expansion.

August 20, 2025|Testimonies & Filings

Comments to the UK Competition and Markets Authority Regarding Its Strategic Market Status Investigation Into Apple’s Mobile Platform

ITIF does not agree with the Competition and Markets Authority's provisional findings that Apple's mobile platform has Strategic Market Status and that there are high barriers to entry and expansion.

August 7, 2025|Blogs

The EU’s DMA Fine Against Meta: GDPR in Disguise?

The European Commission’s DMA action against Meta reveals a strategy of using data protection law principles to stretch competition rules beyond their intended scope—ultimately setting a compliance bar no gatekeeper can meet, infantilizing users, and selectively targeting successful integrated American platforms.

July 31, 2025|Blogs

Germany’s Mini-DMA Targets Amazon

Germany’s attempt to enforce its own version of the EU’s Digital Markets Act represents another antitrust front against U.S. tech companies and exposes the problematic redundancy of European digital regulation.

July 25, 2025|Blogs

Why the EU’s International Digital Strategy Should Prioritize Repairing Transatlantic Cooperation

Instead of distancing itself from the United States through regulation, the EU must prioritize a transatlantic tech alliance as the only viable way to compete with China and protect shared democratic interests.

See All

Back to Top