Antitrust Laws in the 21st Century

Daniel J. Gifford and Robert T. Kudrle wrote “Antitrust Approaches To Dynamically Competitive Industries In The United States And The European Union”, which was subsequently published in the Journal of Competition Law & Economics in 2011. This article contains several of the qualifying factors that deem it scholarly. For starters, Gifford is a Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, and Kudrle is an Orville and Jane Freeman Professor of International Trade and Investment Policy at the Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs and the Law School at the University of Minnesota. Thus, the authors qualify as scholarly contributors. Next we have the online description of the journal, which describes the journal as the following:

"The Journal of Competition Law & Economics is a quarterly journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles on competition law, including developments in the United States, the European Union, and other regions and nations."

 This description verifies that the journal is peer-reviewed, which further qualifies the article as a scholarly source. With further investigation, I also found the publisher of the Journal of Competition Law & Economics is published by Oxford University Press. From this information, I am confident this article serves as a scholarly source for information.

The Gifford and Kudrle article explores intellectual property regulations and the interfering antitrust regulations that sit at the heart of United States and European Union legislative policies. The article centers its conversation around “the new economy,” or the economy now heavily bound to the evolving technological industry. The authors cite the most prominent standing theories in this discussion area to set a backdrop for the argument they are presenting. They also cite examples of how specific corporations operate under the protection of trade secret laws and manage to maintain a monopoly on the industry. Two of their primary examples are Microsoft and Google (both of which have been addressed in my previous blogs.) Both of these examples have managed to attain a monopoly on the industry.

Ultimately, Gifford and Kudrle conclude that further research must me completed and presented to the governmental decision makers. They argue that different standards must be put into place for these new economy firms. However, they maintain that the particulars of these regulations are still unclear. Gifford and Kudrle stress that the responsibility lies with the U.S. and E.U. judiciaries to modify such standards and relieve the paradox. 

Works Cited

Gifford, Daniel F., and Robert T. Kudrle. "Antitrust Approaches to Dynamically Competitive Industries in the United States and the European Union." Journal of Competition Law & Economics (2011): 695-731. Print.

Can children really develop "creatively" online?

In Laura Grossberg’s Spurring Creativity Online, she lists several options for children to express creativity online. From Crayola to Mr. Potato head, Grossberg explains the activities available on each site and how they will benefit and engage children. She points out to parents that this is just like creative crafting, just without the mess or fuss. However, it is logic like this that forces the question: Does the Internet offer the same opportunities for creative development that generations past have found in the analog world?

I believe that the creative development opportunities are incomparable. Traditional arts and crafts develop creativity in a more real-space environment, while creative exercises online develop creativity in a more modern sense. Shouldn’t our modes of creativity develop so that we can expand and grow in the culture we are a part of? In a digital culture, it is only fitting that this generation can easily and readily roam in this open space that is truly theirs. Why is it that the some of the most revolutionary innovators are practically youth?

Each generation has a steadier foundation in the modern world. If their brains developed surrounded by the latest technologies and innovations, it is only natural for them to use this information as a stepping-stone for further development. Laura Grossberg is correct in her claim that Internet-based activities are “spurring creativity online.” Activities like the ones listed in her post truly get the wheels spinning in the minds of our youngest generations. Thus, I can only begin to imagine the possibilities that lie ahead.

Steve Jobs and Intellectual Property

With all of the recent media hype on the death of Steve Jobs, I thought it would be interesting to take a brief look at Jobs’ connection with our topic. The common myth is that Steve Jobs “stole” the ideas for the first Mac personal computer, the Lisa, from Xerox. Apparently, Jobs and several Apple engineers got an inside look into what researchers at the Palo Alto Research Center were working on and marketed the products before Xerox got a chance. Like most Hollywood-like tales, this was not the case. Rather, Xerox got to buy a ton of Apple stock in exchange for this first-look. This means Apple paid Xerox for this sneak peak in the long haul. Plus, Apple didn’t exactly steal these ideas; instead they used the PARC researchers’ solutions to solve problems they had been battling in their designs.

The point to all this is that the hype that mere legend of stolen intellectual property can generate is nearly unstoppable. If rumors can go viral, how is the ever-evolving technological world supposed to keep tabs on what is true and what is false. It is becoming harder and harder to track the genesis of innovations. Can the problem be the solution? Who will be the next genius to map the information web? Jobs leaves big shoes to fill, but what are shoes in a virtual world?

What Warrants Right or Wrong?

Let’s go back a few posts to an argument I discussed earlier in the semester. When I was discussing the arguments (on both sides of the ring) over digital piracy. Today I am going to analyze a single argument against illegal downloads that we constantly hear - the same argument that warrants federal protection. Downloading illegally is, essentially, enjoying a product without paying for it. According to Kofi Outlaw, people who illegally download films are “reaping the pleasure of a good movie without ever rewarding those who worked so hard to entertain them.”

Outlaw is arguing illegal downloads are bad because people are not paying for the products. Thus, the claim in this argument is that illegally downloading films is wrong. The grounds for this claim are that the people making it are not rewarded for their efforts because you are not paying. I guess it is safe to say the warrant behind this claim is that society generally feels it is wrong to take something without paying for it. The argument assumes that people value hard work, and it is up to the reader to assess whether this argument rightly appeals to them. Do you think these grounds are build a strong enough warrant to govern the decisions made in digital progress?

Regulating Innovation, A Personal Tale

I remember the first time I heard about LimeWire. I was visiting my family in Austin, TX, and my aunt insisted on showing my mom and I this handy program. My aunt, a digital immigrant, was showing me a program I had never even heard of that performed a task I had never even fathomed. I had no idea this kind of file transfer was illegal. To me, it was the evolving convenience of technology.

This introduction happened several years ago. Since then, LimeWire’s P2P software distribution was shut down in October 2010 after a series of legal battles. According to the September 15, 2011 Music Notes Blog, the finish of LimeWire had a heavy impact on track sales overall. Let’s think about this… I discovered LimeWire back in 2002. My discovery was very likely a later one. How many years was the recording industry experiencing these hits before legal action finally put an end to their losses?

In a world surrounded by the “evolving convenience of technology,” regulation runs at a speed far slower than innovation. How can the government establish long-standing policies to protect the record industry and other industries harvesting intellectual property? Is this even a possibility? With cases like the LimeWire example, it seems that regulators need to expand their focus to prevention. Not only are they behind the curve, they are 8-10 years behind. Maybe these affected industries should invest in researching preventative measures for future obstacles. What suggestions do you have?

“Randi Zuckerburg Runs in the Wrong Direction” on “An Abuse of Power”

In Eva Galperin’s Randi Zuckerburg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online and Danah Boyd’s ”Real Names” Policies are an Abuse of Power, both bloggers criticize Google Plus and Facebook’s “real names” policy and make vivid references to the “nymwars.” Both posts are knocking Zuckerburg (Facebook’s Marketing Director) for recent comments she made regarding the issue. However, while Galperin aims her fire directly at Zuckerburg, Boyd directs her argument more broadly at any party ‘enforcing “real names” policies in online spaces.

Galperin advocates for protection of “freedom of expression”. Boyd advocates against “abuse of power.” In my opinion, these two tasks are essentially the same thing. Both bloggers are arguing on behalf of individuals and free expression. Let me say this again, both bloggers are arguing on behalf of individuals and free expression. This should come as no surprise given their industry and likelihood. However, what I find most interesting is both bloggers use their real names in their blogs. Does this give them a louder voice in the discussion pseudonymity? Could be.

Both bloggers make reference to the online users that pseudonyms can both protect and give voices to. They argue on behalf of the weak and the victimized, a noble pursuit. Still, they attack Facebook and Google+, taking comments and decisions out of context to represent them as the power-hungry big businesses, who couldn't care less about the individual.

For example, Galperin states, “Facebook can and does choose real names over free speech and diversity of users –- that’s where the money is.” Facebook does choose real names. Personally, I don’t believe Facebook chooses it over free speech and diversity of users. In fact, I think Facebook does so for efficiency and to better protect their customers and advertisers. Yes, this is where the money is, but Facebook is a business. We need not forget that they are a private company, not a public service or government entity. Users choose to participate. If they want anonymity, they need to take advantage of the free market options available.

Boyd continues the hate when she says, ‘Real names are by no means universal on Facebook, but it’s the importance of real names is a myth that Facebook likes to shill out. And, for the most part, privileged white Americans use their real name on Facebook. So it “looks” right.’ I really do not want to focus on this statement because my main purpose for pointing it out is its stringently combative nature. Social networking sites are for exactly that, social networking. I understand the use of pseudonyms for protecting oneself but using pseudonyms has very little to do with skin color, particularly on sites where individuals post pictures of themselves, their friends, and their families.

Users should be able to protect themselves from others. Pseudonyms are a good method for doing so. However, Galperin and Boyd argue on behalf of pseudonyms for privacy. People should be able to choose who they expose themselves to, but expose who you truly are or you are wasting the purpose of a social networking site.

“Nymwars” – The battle for anonymity rights

In my past blogs, I discussed how a technological age has opened countless doors to policy controversy and set a stage for a brand new realm of legislation and social norms. I made reference to the high probability of unpredicted issues just waiting to be found. Now, I want to give you a peek into one of these issues.

Nymwars hit center stage in June 2011 with the launch of Google+. I will touch on the specifics of this case in further blogs. However, it is important to note that Google+ enforced their real names policy by suspending accounts that for name-related issues. Thus, the heated discussions over anonymity began.

As I was exploring this issue in detail for my next blog entry, I started thinking about my own opinions regarding this subject matter. I have always used my full name on social networking sites. Is this because I feel like I have nothing to hide? This method works for me, so my first reaction was to defend Google+ and Facebook. If your profile is representing you with pictures and events from your real life, putting your real name seems like just a minor piece to equation compared to the other information you share. Plus, both sites offer extensive privacy options.

Once I finished dwelling in my single narrative mind frame, I took a second to step back. I thought about cases where pseudonyms would be beneficial. One particular example came to mind. A friend of mine from high school plays Division I football for his university. His Facebook profile was listed as his real name in high school, so up until a few days ago, I thought he had deleted his Facebook. Whenever I had gone to search him, nothing came up. After his big game last Saturday, he posted a picture that showed up on my Newsfeed. He had changed his name to a pseudonym.

His reasons for doing so are somewhat self-explanatory. He wants to be able to get on Facebook and share his accomplishments with his friends and family, not the thousands of people who would friend request him otherwise. And when I say thousands, I am not exaggerating. Another friend of mine, who also plays D-I football and did not change his name, has somewhere in the range of 80-100 friend requests every time he logs on. After all, Facebook is most popular among college-age individuals. This friend has to sort through all of his incoming requests to distinguish whom he actually knows. It is certainly a hassle.

It is safe to say there are legitimate arguments on both ends of the spectrum. In the coming weeks, I will dig deeper into these arguments and explore the legislation accompanying these policies.