What Carrier Doesn't Address

It is trite to say that “we are all Schumpeterians now.” But when it comes to appreciating the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship, we are. Joseph Schumpeter’s writings, while prescient in many respects, failed to provide a theory of innovation that lends itself to easy public policy prescriptions. By highlighting the role that antitrust law and intellectual property policy can play in spurring innovation, Michael Carrier has done the field a great service. In short, Innovation for the 21 Century is an impressive, ambitious, and important book. Rather than discussing Carrier’s contributions, however, this short comment will underscore three important points his book does not address. My first critique of Professor Carrier’s proposals rests on a concern that he misreads the doctrinal implications of the Supreme Court’s decisions at the intersection of antitrust and regulation. In particular, Carrier suggests that the Trinko/Credit Suisse double header is, at worst, benign and, at best, on the money. Notably, his view of Trinko leads him to predict that the Supreme Court will take an aggressive posture as to “pay for