Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM What does it mean to “own” something? A simple question (with a complicated answer, of course) that, astonishingly, goes unasked in a recent article in . . .
What does it mean to “own” something? A simple question (with a complicated answer, of course) that, astonishingly, goes unasked in a recent article in the Pennsylvania Law Review entitled, What We Buy When We “Buy Now,” by Aaron Perzanowski and Chris Hoofnagle (hereafter “P&H”). But how can we reasonably answer the question they pose without first trying to understand the nature of property interests?
Read the full piece here.
TOTM In Brussels, the talk of the town is that the European Commission (“Commission”) is casting a new eye on the old antitrust conjecture that prophesizes . . .
In Brussels, the talk of the town is that the European Commission (“Commission”) is casting a new eye on the old antitrust conjecture that prophesizes a negative relationship between industry concentration and innovation. This issue arises in the context of the review of several mega-mergers in the pharmaceutical and AgTech (i.e., seed genomics, biochemicals, “precision farming,” etc.) industries.
TOTM I recently became aware of a decision from the High Court in South Africa that examines an interesting intersection of freedom of expression, copyright and . . .
I recently became aware of a decision from the High Court in South Africa that examines an interesting intersection of freedom of expression, copyright and contract. It addresses the issue of how to define the public interest in an environment of relatively unguarded rhetoric about the role of copyright in society that is worth exploring. But first, a quick recap of the relevant facts, none of which were in issue.
Popular Media At an oversight hearing on Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee confronted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai with questions over last week’s partial stay of the . . .
At an oversight hearing on Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee confronted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai with questions over last week’s partial stay of the commission’s broadband privacy order. While privacy rules are certainly highly complicated, comments from some senators telegraphed a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been done to date to protect consumers, and given the current ecosystem, what the FCC’s proper role should be going forward.
Popular Media BEWARE THE LURKING variable. Even if you didn't suffer through a semester of college statistics, you're probably familiar with the adage "correlation doesn't imply causation." But if you haven't had the pleasure, it's a fairly easy concept to grasp.
Beware the lurking variable. Even if you didn’t suffer through a semester of college statistics, you’re probably familiar with the adage “correlation doesn’t imply causation.” But if you haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a fairly easy concept to grasp.
TOTM My colleague, Neil Turkewitz, begins his fine post for Fair Use Week (read: crashing Fair Use Week) by noting that Many of the organizations celebrating . . .
My colleague, Neil Turkewitz, begins his fine post for Fair Use Week (read: crashing Fair Use Week) by noting that
Many of the organizations celebrating fair use would have you believe, because it suits their analysis, that copyright protection and the public interest are diametrically opposed. This is merely a rhetorical device, and is a complete fallacy.
If I weren’t a recovering law professor, I would just end there: that about sums it up, and “the rest is commentary,” as they say. Alas…
TOTM In a recent article for the San Francisco Daily Journal I examine Google v. Equustek: a case currently before the Canadian Supreme Court involving the scope of . . .
In a recent article for the San Francisco Daily Journal I examine Google v. Equustek: a case currently before the Canadian Supreme Court involving the scope of jurisdiction of Canadian courts to enjoin conduct on the internet.
In the piece I argue that…
ICLE White Paper Summary A novel theory of harm is crystalising in European Union (“EU”) merger control. Under this theory, the EU Commission (“Commission”) can intervene in mergers . . .
A novel theory of harm is crystalising in European Union (“EU”) merger control. Under this theory, the EU Commission (“Commission”) can intervene in mergers that it considers generally reduce innovation incentives in an industry as a whole. This theory of harm can be referred to as the Significant Impediment to Industry Innovation (“SIII”) theory. This policy paper first attempts to describe the content and extent of the SIII theory (I). Second, it shows that the SIII theory marks a departure from established EU merger control practice (II). Third, it discusses the economic foundations of the SIII theory (III). Finally, it puts forward best practices for the assessment of mergers in R&D intensive industries (IV). With this, the present paper hopes to assist in the development of sound merger control policy in innovative markets, and undermine crude conjectures on the relationship between market structure, patent statistics and industry innovation theory.
Continue reading the full paper.
Regulatory Comments "What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities you believe are the most important for the Register of Copyrights?"
“What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities you believe are the most important for the Register of Copyrights?
While undoubtedly this is a restatement of the obvious, the Register should, first and foremost, have a background that demonstrates his or her understanding of the importance of modern and effective copyright protection and its critical role in the economic and cultural health of this nation…”
“The Register should seek to ensure that all creators are able to choose the manner in which their creations are used. An effective and functional copyright environment is not a panacea; it does not on its own create global parity in the marketplace of ideas. But it does give individual creators a fighting chance, and an opportunity to compete. The ability to generate revenue from one’s creativity — to earn a living as a creator by determining how and when to license the use of one’s creative works — is fundamental to a society’s ability to foster cultural production. The moral and economic aspects of this equation are inseparable.
It is also important for the Register to fully grasp that systems of copyright replaced private patronage as the mechanism for enabling creators to be self-sustaining. When creativity is fueled by market forces, the cultural power and potential of individuals is unleashed and society benefits. While copyright may be inadequate on its own to create optimal market conditions, it remains by far the most effective tool for fostering creativity and democratizing culture…”
