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?