Franchising plays a key role in promoting American job creation and economic growth. As explained in Forbes (hyperlinks omitted)…

Read the full piece here.

Democrats say Social Security is untouchable and have roped Republicans into saying the same. They also constantly lament the gap between returns to capital and labor. Stock buybacks and even dividends have come under fire, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer saying that buybacks—already subject to a new surtax—should be banned. Democrats’ dogged attachment to government-run investing undermines the goal of helping workers save for retirement. And fixing Social Security could help solve the capital-labor returns problem.

Read the full piece here.

Background: The European Commission is about to unveil draft regulation that will more tightly regulate how patents are incorporated into technology standards. The Commission’s expert report and call for comments suggest that it wants to create a regime of third-party checks that would verify whether inventors’ patents are truly essential to a technology standard (i.e., “essentiality checks”). The goal ultimately is to ensure that standard-essential patents (SEPs) are adequately disclosed to would-be licensees. There are thousands of SEPs that underpin the technologies powering the digital economy, thus making it essential that firms coordinate to develop and implement these technologies.

However… It is unclear that such regulation would improve upon the status quo. While it might not be perfect, the existing approach to essentially checks has seen SEP-reliant industries provide countless technological breakthroughs. This has led industries where SEPs are particularly relevant to occupy key geostrategic positions. By contrast, imposing heavy-handed regulation risks not only that there will be harm to consumers, but the potential that the West’s strategic position relative to adversarial foreign powers like China or Russia may be weakened.

THE ROLE OF ESSENTIALITY CHECKS

Technical standards (e.g., 5G, WiFi, USB-C, etc.) often rely on hundreds—sometimes thousands—of distinct inventions that can each be covered by multiple patents. 

Firms that commercialize goods incorporating these technologies need to know which patents are essential to those standards—thus avoiding situations where license fees are paid for technologies that are not necessary to practice a given standard.

Essentiality checks can potentially streamline this process, thereby limiting the over- and/or under-disclosure of SEPs. But this is a complex and costly endeavor. The benefits of achieving perfect disclosure of SEPs—be it via market forces or regulation—are thus unlikely to outweigh the costs.

WHO SHOULD ASSESS ESSENTIALITY?

As things stand, a patent’s essentiality is determined in various ways. These include the use of patent pools, self-assessments by inventors, and evaluations outsourced to third-party experts. 

Whatever one thinks of that heterogeneous approach, it is clear that the SEP industry has thrived under this laissez-faire paradigm, and that competition among the various inventors, implementers, and standards-development organizations (who bring inventors and implementers together) has played a useful role in optimizing these processes. Regulators should thus be wary not to upset the apple cart.

In contrast, the Commission’s expert report and its call for comments both suggest that it favors a more centralized system in which government institutions, such as patent offices, would act as backstops for essentiality checks. 

Such a system would not be without risks. Indeed, there is little evidence that SEP-heavy industries are underperforming. Any reform thus risks creating more friction than it removes.

WHAT ABOUT SANCTIONS?

There are fears that excessive sanctions for failing to adequately disclose essential patents could tilt the bargaining power in SEP-reliant industries toward implementers. In turn, this could undermine inventors’ incentive to produce new technologies.

In recent years, courts around the world have sought to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of inventors and implementers. In doing so, they have foiled attempts by several regulators to limit the royalties that inventors can extract; to prevent them from obtaining injunctions against infringers of their patents; and to determine the level of the value chain at which royalties are to be calculated. 

One concern is that the draft regulation may seek to forward those goals by assessing penalties for failing to comply with its provisions. For instance, inventors may lose the ability to bring injunctions against infringers if a third party deems their patent to be non-essential. Given the vital role that these injunctions play, such a policy would be misguided.

GEOSTRATEGIC IMPACT 

Finally, overburdening firms that are active in the SEP space could erode the West’s technological leadership relative to states with manufacturing-reliant economies whose political leaders routinely undermine the intellectual property rights of foreign firms.

Many SEPs, particularly those relevant to the telecommunications sector, are held by companies in the West and specifically in the United States. The lion’s share of implementers, by contrast, are based in China. Policies that impose significant costs on inventors and benefit implementers may thus amount to a subsidy to Chinese firms and a tax on Western innovation.

These harmful consequences are magnified in light of China’s strategic effort to shape international technology standards. With European firms systematically deterred from participating in the development of open technology standards, Chinese firms—directed by their government authorities—will gain significant control of the technologies that underpin tomorrow’s digital goods and services. The consequences are potentially catastrophic.

For more on this issue, see ICLE’s academic output on standard essential patents here and here, and our response to the Commission’s recent consultation here. 

Introduction

Business organizations can take many forms, from founder-led to multidivisional multinationals to emerging IT-enabled platforms. The prevailing organizational form in business is neither set in stone nor decided upon by fad. It is largely a result of the technological and economic conditions of the time. There were no large U.S. corporations before the emergence of the railroad because the production system neither required nor enabled scale, which corporations are designed to manage. When rail and industrial production technologies evolved after the Civil War, large corporations became the norm. Justice Louis Brandeis and other opponents of these new corporations sought to squelch them in their infancy, preferring a prior economy dominated by owner-led, small and mid-sized firms. Even with the passage of the Sherman Act, their opposition was largely stillborn; the benefits of the corporation were simply too vast. However, had the Brandeisians succeeded in their quest to turn back time, America would not be the global economic leader it is today.

We are potentially at a similar transformative point in history, with digital technologies enabling the rise of a new kind of productive organization: the platform. Digital platforms, not just in the information sector, have the potential to transform many industries for the better: raising productivity, improving quality and consumer choice, and reducing prices. But just as there was significant opposition against the transition to the corporate economy, today there is significant opposition to the platform economy, although this time not among the populace, but rather among the elites: activists, public intellectuals and academics, and elected officials of both parties. If their attempts to roll back the “platformization” of the U.S. economy succeed, the economic costs to the nation and to consumers would be considerable and long-lasting.

This report assesses the past two major changes in corporate form, and the public and government responses to them. It then examines the prospect and potential benefits of the “platformization” of the economy, as well as current opposition. Finally, it discusses the variety of policy approaches proposed to address platform governance and why most will lead to more harm than good.

Rep. Carter and the Members of NCOIL,

Thank you for inviting me. My name is R.J. Lehmann, and I am the editor-in-chief and a senior fellow with the International Center for Law & Economics. ICLE is a think tank based in Portland, Oregon, dedicated to promoting the law & economics approach to legal analysis, and to issues of public policy more generally.

Some of you may know me from my prior work at the R Street Institute, which I co-founded in 2012. Among the hats I wore at R Street was running the institute’s insurance policy project, and I was the author of the first nine editions of R Street’s annual report card evaluating insurance regulation in the 50 states.

It was actually early in our days at R Street that I first encountered the topic before us today. After the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012, there was a pressing call for new and creative thinking about ways to address the scourge of firearms violence. Being a research center that was, at that point, devoted almost exclusively to insurance issues, we explored whether mandatory insurance could be part of the solution to promote firearms safety, just as mandatory auto insurance has served to promote driving safety and mandatory workers compensation insurance has served to promote workplace safety. So, while I’m about to tell you why I think these mandates are a bad idea, I want to note at the top that I do understand the intuition.

What we concluded, after batting around various iterations of what a mandate might look like, is that it was fundamentally unworkable. That insurance could not possibly respond in the overwhelming number of cases that were of public concern and that in the limited set where it could respond – which is, basically, true accidents that befall third parties – coverage already exists, either through a homeowners policy or a renters policy.

The two central problems that limit the applicability of any firearms-insurance mandate are that intentional acts are uninsurable and that it is the nature of liability insurance that only harms to third parties are covered.

Taking those one at a time, the claim that intentional acts are uninsurable begs two other obvious questions, each of which, unfortunately, can take us down some rather unproductive detours. What does it mean for an act to be intentional and what does it mean for an event to be insurable?

On intentionality, there’s a whole rabbit hole one can head down on free will and determinism and whether all actions are intentional or whether no actions are intentional. This is not a philosophy class, so I’d like to rescue us from that particular rabbit hole.

The question of insurability returns me to a theme I found myself echoing a lot in another recent public policy discussion—which is whether business interruption for pandemics is insurable. What I said then and will say here is that insurability is a spectrum. Things may be more or less insurable, meaning, in a nutshell, that the willingness of capital to participate in risk-transfer solutions for any particular class of event will vary.

The framing that I think is most helpful for these purposes is to say the sorts of events that are most insurable are those that are fortuitious—which is to say, they happen by chance, rather than by design—and where there is a broad alignment between the goals of the insurer and the insured. When I step into my car, I would like to avoid getting into an accident. My insurer would also like me to avoid getting into an accident. If I do nonetheless get into an accident, it’s a fortuitous event. That event is insurable. If, rather than an accident, I willfully try to run someone down on the road, then we’re not aligned. That’s not insurable and claims for vehicular homicide are excluded—even though, in some places and some cases, the insurer may still be required by a judge or jury to pay a claim.

Applying that logic to the example of firearms incidents offers some context for just how many potential claims are excluded the realm of insurability simply from the fact that insurers are not willing to extend coverage to intentional acts. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, more than 70% of firearms injuries are the result of assaults, while less than 20% are unintentional. Among firearms-related deaths, the National Safety Council finds that 54% are suicides, 43% are homicides, and only about 1% are accidental.

We therefore start with proposition that only about one-fifth of firearms injuries, and only about 1 in 100 firearms deaths, are even potentially insurable. That universe of potentially insurable claims shrinks even further—although the data on this is harder to find—when you consider that it is the nature of liability policies that they only cover injuries to third parties. If a contractor slips and falls on your property, that might be covered under your homeowners insurance policy. If you slip and fall, it will not be. If your dog bites your neighbor, it might be covered. If your dog bites you, it will not be covered.

So, similarly, if there’s a firearms accident in your home and a third party is injured, that might be covered. Indeed, even if the accident is outside your home—say, you’re the vice president of the United States and you accidentally shoot your hunting partner in the face—your homeowners policy very well might cover that.

But the insured in a homeowners policy is the household, not an individual. If one member of your household accidentally shoots another member of your household—even in the very tragic incidents we hear about involving children—that’s not going to be an insured claim.

Another factor that likely shrinks the universe of claims even further is the language of the HO-3 policy itself. The policy has always excluded injuries or property damage that the insured “expected or intended.” But in 2000, the Insurance Services Office actually broadened that exclusion quite a bit, and the standard policy now states that coverage is excluded for an action that is “of a different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended” or “is sustained by a different person, entity, real or personal property, than initially expected or intended.” That’s a pretty broad exclusion and courts have tended to read it as covering even negligently careless actions that result in unintentional injuries.

Nonetheless, despite these manifest limitations on what an insurance mandate could possibly cover, we have watched such proposals perennially introduced in various states in the decade since Sandy Hook, with New York and Connecticut being two of the most frequent states where legislation was considered. Until this past year, when the City of San Jose and the State of New Jersey both adopted differing versions of a mandate, they never went anywhere.

But interestingly, in 2018, we saw regulatory action that, rather than mandate liability insurance for gun owners, actually would appear to forbid it, and this contradiction is important and underappreciated in the current discussion.

For a recap, back in 2018, New York State Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo brought complaints against the broker Lockton, the underwriter Chubb, and the National Rifle Association over their respective roles in administering the Carry Guard insurance program for NRA members. Some of the charges concerned alleged violations of the declinations requirements to place policies in the surplus-lines market and that the NRA was marketing policies as an unlicensed producer. Those violations aren’t of much interest here. But the core charge was that, because Carry Guard would pay legal defense costs for insureds who face civil or criminal charges related to the use of firearms (that is, where the insured pleads innocent, claims self-defense, or asserts that they are not liable in a civil proceeding) the coverage itself was fundamentally contrary to public policy establishing that criminal acts cannot be insured.

Now, as many insurance lawyers in this room could testify, it’s not always quite as simple as that. It is not unusual at all for an insurer in, say, the directors and officers, or errors and omissions, or environmental-liability lines to find themselves on the hook for the defense costs of an insured accused of a criminal act. And where they are adjudicated guilty, the insurer may try to claw back those costs. But until that point, there are fiduciary duties an insurer owes to its policyholders, and refusing to pay defense costs on a liability policy is usually a quick ticket to a bad faith lawsuit.

But more fundamentally, paying defense costs is a if not the fundamental purpose of liability insurance. So, if the Carry Guard program was contrary to public policy, that’s another way to say that liability insurance for firearms is illegal. And the primary reason I think that has to be considered in this discussion is that one of the states that filed follow-on actions in the Carry Guard case was New Jersey. Which suggests the absurd scenario that New Jersey is now requiring a form of insurance that is illegal to sell in New Jersey.

I am not a constitutional lawyer—or any kind of lawyer for that matter—so I’m going to refrain from saying too much about how these mandates would be treated under the rubric the Supreme Court promulgated in last year’s Bruen decision, although I reserve for myself the right to chime in with my amateur opinion if the subject comes up in the Q&A, which I imagine it will. I would recommend a paper by Adam Schniderman of the University of Michigan Law School that I believe is the first to look at the question, and he makes what I think is a compelling case that neither the New Jersey statute nor the San Jose ordinance would survive under Bruen analysis.

But more generally, I think it’s clear that what these proposals seek is a kind of end-run around the Second Amendment; i.e., that you can outsource to the insurance industry, through its underwriting and rate-setting processes, vetting of firearms owners that existing Second Amendment jurisprudence would appear to deny to state and local governments.

There are various problems with this, but one that I think is most important is that it’s grounded on a theory of what insurers would do to manage firearms risk that appears to be fundamentally untrue. In other words, as mentioned, we already have coverage for firearms accidents in homeowners policies. But insurers don’t charge different rates to different homeowners based on their risk of firearms accidents. Based on my understanding, there aren’t even any insurers who ask whether a policy applicant owns a firearm, so it doesn’t even appear in the underwriting side of the equation.

Now, maybe this is because liability is a relatively small part of the risk underwritten in a homeowners policy, and as mentioned, firearms incidents are an even smaller proportion of liability claims. But it should be noted that, even the NRA’s Carry Guard policy—which was a standalone policy for firearms liability—didn’t charge variable rates. It charged a flat fee.

Bespoke, targeted risk-based underwriting is such a ubiquitous part of our modern insurance markets that we sometimes take for granted just how new and novel it is. In auto insurance, it really only dates back to George Joseph’s Mercury General in the 1960s. There have always been underwriting criteria, such as Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia Contributionship refusing to insure homes with trees because they were likely to spread fire. But the assumption that, for any given risk, insurers will automatically have and know how to use the relevant data sets to segregate high risk from low risk, is naïve. The use of this data is actually a historical aberration.

Even if insurers do find that data, the variables that provide actuarially credible projections may not be the ones that you assume or hope for. For instance, it may be that the thing that best predicts whether you’re going to have a firearms accident is your income. That sort of correlation is always problematic and controversial, but it should be particularly concerning if what it implicates is a constitutionally protected right.

I look forward to your questions.

 

The Minnesota Senate Commerce Committee last week passed SF 1598, the Digital Fair Repair Bill. The bill from Sen. Rob Kupec, DFL-Moorhead, would require manufacturers to provide independent repair companies access to relevant repair information.

Read the full piece here.

 

 

ICLE Director of Innovation Policy Kristian Stout was interviewed by RFD-TV for a story item about the challenges involved in connecting rural areas to broadband internet.

 

 

One of the threats that could affect the efficacy of this program could be different state authorities not necessarily focusing on people who have traditionally been very difficult to connect to the internet but looking at lower hanging fruit that it’s easier to connect, like people who

might have slower than extremely fast but are faster than what we consider nonexistent broadband service. There are a number of hurdles that have just traditionally existed everywhere in the United States for broadband deployment. These include things like municipal permitting, getting rights of way, and then one of the largest drivers cost is access to utility poles across the United States. There are some more complicated problems that go into accessing these poles around whether they’re privately-owned or whether they’re owned by municipalities and co-ops, which can easily explode costs for a particular deployment and make it so that the money that the federal government is directing to reach these remote areas is not being fully-used to reach these people but is instead being wasted.

ICLE President Geoffrey Manne was cited by Matt Perault of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill during Perault’s recent appearance on The Lawfare Podcast. His comments are quoted here and the full episode is embedded below.

I saw Geoff Manne give the Hayek lecture at Duke last week and he presented a case that was actually very critical of Section 230 along these lines, making the case that there’s meritorious litigation that because of 230 never gets its day in court and that there are a variety of social harms that tech platforms, at least in some cases, don’t bear any of the costs for.

Wildfire has hit Assemblymember Damon Connolly’s (D-San Rafael) Northern California district particularly hard in recent years, including the devastating Glass and LNU Lightning Complex fires in 2020, the Nuns and Tubbs fires in 2017, and the Valley fire in 2015.

Read the full piece here.