Allgeyer v. Louisiana

As I discussed earlier, Allgeyer v. Lousiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897) expressed the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court that freedom of contract was a fundamental right protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While this case itself was applied to limitations of out-of-state businesses operating in Louisiana, its valorization of the “liberty of contract” was extended to employment regulations as well (Hall 398).

Holden v. Hardy

Still, despite this valorization of contract as liberty the year before, hints emerged of limitations on contract that would emerge more fully in the twentieth century. In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898), Justice Henry Billings Brown “accepted the idea that employer and employee do not stand on an equal bargaining footing” (Hall 399):

the proprietors of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an equality, and … their interests are, to a certain extent, conflicting. … In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers are practically constrained to obey them.

As regulations limiting children’s working hours in factories are a valid exercise of a state’s police power — which also includes enforced vaccination, quarantine, and other protections of the public’s general welfare — so too is an act that seeks to protect workers in a particularly dangerous occupation (mining).

Lochner v. New York

At the turn of the century, the “triumph of contract” was effectively constitutionalized: Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) held that the “liberty of contract” was a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Lochner invalidated legislation limiting the workweek to 60 hours on the theory that

the general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

The Lochner Court construed the law as an absolute interference “with the right of contract between the employer and employees,” then declared that “the general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.” The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause — originally intended to overturn Dred Scott and to prohibit so-called “Black Codes” — prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. To the Lochner Court, the right to buy and sell labor through contract was a “liberty of the individual,” and was thus constitutionally protected.

The end of Lochner

Lochner was finally challenged successfully during the Depression, in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), which finally allowed for a general minimum wage in Washington State — and thus overturned the maximalist version of freedom of contract.

Breaking the Vicious Cycle, Stephen Breyer

In Breaking the Vicious Circle, Justice Stephen Breyer tackles the problem of regulation and risk in the American context:

Justice Breyer identifies several systemic problems that plague the regulatory process in the United States. He discusses how public (mis)perceptions, congressional (over)reaction, and technical (un)certainty create a “vicious circle” that increasingly undermines the legitimacy of the regulatory process.  —  Eric J. Gouvin, A Square Peg In A Vicious Circle: Stephen Breyer’s Optimistic Prescription For The Regulatory Mess

Breyer complains that the current approach to risk regulation is irrational. Because the perception of risk drives voters, and therefore public officials, to focus on specific potential harms, there is little appropriate “risk-benefit” assessment employed.

For example, regulators may seek to clean up every aspect of a potential agent — like asbestos — while neglecting to consider whether the benefit of complete cleanup is worth the risk, either monetary or physical:

For example, “cleaning up” asbestos in public buildings causes asbestos fibers that would have remained harmlessly in place to become airborne, increasing significantly the chance of those fibers lodging in workers’ lungs and creating medical problems. (Gouvin, n. 11, 475)

Breyer puts together a table showing that some regulations with costs of $10 million to $5.7 trillion per life saved. In short, the “marginal cost of extra health may daunt all but the most zealous” (Stephen F. Williams, “Risk Regulations and its Hazards,” 1499).

1995′s approach is also uncoordinated. Breyer points out that regulations on space heaters cost $100,000 per life saved, while bans on DES in cattle feed cost roughly $125 million “per statistical life” (22). Stephen Williams explains that Breyer sees this as a “wasteful allocation of resources” that over invests in certain areas and neglects others (1498). In other words, with limited resources available, such uncoordinated and disconnected spending fails to save the maximum number of possible lives per available dollar — and little has changed in 2012.

Regulations also overlap in unanticipated (but likely not unanticipatable) ways:

Proposed rules concerning disposal of sewer sludge, designed to save one statistical life every five years, would encourage waste incineration likely to cause two statistical deaths annually (22).

In other words, disparate agencies assessing and regulating risk tend to focus on their own peculiar zones of risk, and fail to appreciate the big picture of interacting regulations.

In summary, Breyer categorizes the various regulatory failures like those described above as (1) tunnel vision, (2) random agenda selection, and (3) inconsistency.

The Source of the Problem

Irrational regulations emerge from a triumvirate of sources: (1) inaccurate public perceptions; (2) congressional action and reaction, instead of planning; and (3) uncertainties in the regulatory process.

First, even if lay people do think rationally about possible risks — and Breyer thinks they tend to — they “are unlikely to acquire a full grasp of the relevant facts” (Williams, 1500). The lay public typically gets its information from press sources, and the press focuses on the dramatic. A focus on toxic-waste dumps, for example, along with a presentation of higher-than-average cancer rates in nearby areas, may conflate causation with correlation and lead to an irrational (if viewed from a societal perspective, anyway) demand to regulate toxic-waste dumps to reduce the incidence of cancer.

Second, Congress tends to be reactive to what they perceive as voter’s current demands — since these demands are what get them re-elected. (The House, which its short, 2-year election cycle, is even more prone to this than the Senate, which grants 6 years between elections). And with changing Congressional representation, agencies may receive vastly different, and potentially incompatible, regulatory missions.

Third, the regulatory process itself is uncertain, because the science of risk is uncertain. It is essentially impossible to set up a double-blind, controlled study of the effects of small amounts of benzene on humans over a 60-year period. Instead, researchers use short-term, high-dose animal studies and then extrapolate to the long-term effects on humans.

But rats are not humans, and high-doses of chemicals do not necessarily cause the same effects as low-doses. As Breyer observes, there is “no consistent scientific rational for assuming a linear relation between dose and response” (44).

Statistical and epidemiological studies can get around these particular problems, but introduce their own potential issues — especially around the problems of distinguishing between causation and correlation. Also — impossible to isolate all variable. Variables are never truly independent. Best to look for lots of study — meta-studies — an rather inductive science.

Breyer’s Solution

Breyer has no real solution to the technical problems of the science, other than to let technically trained people — those who understand the problems with the science — make the decisions. He does have many suggestions about how to structure a bureaucracy/technocracy that can better weigh, assess, and decide on policies based on the data that can be generated with today’s science.

His overall solution is quintessentially technocratic, and very much reminiscent of a more European model of regulatory authority. He wants, in the words of Todd Zubler, “an elite and insulated cadre of civil servants” (244) — experts in both science and government — to “unite[] political power with wisdom.” (Breyer, x) This Socratic unity, as opposed to the voting booth, is what creates trust; it “must be central in any effort to create the politics of trust” (81).

More specifically, Zubler says,

Breyer wants to establish a new and prestigious career path by which civil servants could develop regulatory expertise across a number of different governmental agencies. These experienced bureaucrats could then form a small, centralized administrative group that could coordinate and rationalize the nation’s regulatory agenda. Such an organization, according to Breyer, would combine the expertise, broad vision, political insulation, and interagency jurisdiction which are all so lacking in the current system. (244)

Issues

Zubler worries that Breyer’s new centralized bureaucracy goes too far. Other forces can also protect people from risk, including the market and the judicial system:

But … regulation is only needed when market and common law mechanisms fail. To push bureaucratic regulation beyond those situations threatens individual liberty and freedom. (247)

Put differently, Breyer’s European-style, top-down, technocratic system brings efficiency and rationality to bear of the problem of risk. But — interestingly for a lawyer and judge — it neglects the bottom-up tools that are core to the American approach, such as tort law and free-market competition. He proposes a grand, top-down restructuring that does nothing to adjust and improve an individual’s ability to assess and manage risk, such as improved labeling and consumer information and better access to the courts.

The Judiciary

What would be the role of the judiciary in an America where technocratic elites are making regulatory decisions?

Medical device manufacturers have already argued — and won — the case that FDA-approval of medical devices preempts tort lawsuits (Riegel v. Medtronic, 552 U.S. 312 (2008)). On the other hand, drug manufacturers lost their bid for preemption in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009).

Would — or should — Breyer’s approach preempt lawsuits? For maximum efficiency, it should — but the American system is not about efficiency at all. It’s about checking the power of any one part of government. The judiciary’s role since Marbury v. Madison, at least, is to check the rest of government. But while eliminating this check would fundamentally alter the balance of power, not doing so would severely undermine many gains in efficiency.

Interestingly, Breyer’s unelected, technocratic elite are reminiscent of the federal judiciary itself. It too consists of specialists (in law) who are unelected (they appointed by the President) and unaccountable (except via impeachment, federal judges serve for life). But the judiciary is considered the third branch of American government, and these special attributes serve as its means of checking and balancing the executive and legislative branches. Extending these attributes to Breyer’s new cadre might well create the equivalent of a fourth branch — and would anything less prove effective enough to be worth the effort?

Liberal or Conservative?

Finally, I wonder how to characterize Breyer’s proposal: is it liberal, conservative, or something else? In many respects, his solution is extremely conservative: it presumes a distrust of the public that is reminiscent of conservative distrust of poor voters, for example. But it invokes a liberal (in the modern sense), governmental solution to the problem, one that is opposed to contemporary Republican views that government is the problem, not the solution. On the other hand, a more efficient regulatory system could eliminate government waste, reform tort law, and free business from burdensome, pointless regulations. A more efficient government is a cheaper government that would require fewer taxes — a popular conservative goal.

Depending on the details, then, Breyer’s reforms could appeal to both Democrats and Republicans — but certainly not to modern libertarians, or to anyone opposed to government on principle. It is, in a sense, anti-individualist, and deeply dismissive of old liberal notions of market-based corrections and individual responsibility.

Conclusions

Still, gains in efficiency and effectiveness would not require such radical changes. Improved cross-agency coordination and more inclusion of scientific experts — perhaps with a more limited version of Breyer’s technocratic bureau — might provide major gains without requiring fundamental readjustments of the American system.

My short opinion? Breyer effectively identified major systemic problems with the American regulatory system, but his full proposed solution is simply impractical in the United States (perhaps especially in 2012) — but more limited versions would still provide useful reforms. But any of this would require greater trust and respect in science — and a philosophical uniting of virtue and wisdom by scientists is not enough to overcome the current anti-intellectual and anti-science beliefs prevalent today in the American Right:

“The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is.”  —  2012 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Image by spiralstares via Flickr

An article in Slate claims:

While legal automation will be a boon for those who can’t afford representation, it’s bad news for lawyers. The industry is already in a slump, and law school is no longer seen as a sure path to riches. Because software will allow fewer lawyers to do a lot more work, it’s sure to drive down both price and demand.

My opinion? Software won’t replace lawyers, but it will reduce the demand for certain routine legal services and raise the complexity of litigation. Those without the software will be at a disadvantage. It will also cut into the work of paralegals. But not lawyers.

(Part of this reminds me of the claims in the early 20th century that polygraph machines would replace juries, since machines could judge truth of falsity and revolutionize the entire legal process. That didn’t happen, of course.)

It’s true that being a lawyer today involves a great deal of drudge work, especially at the lower echelons, and certainly eliminating some of the most time-consuming parts of the profession has the potential to reduce the workload. But while computer programs to generate wills have cut back on the demand for bare-bones legal services, the general result, I think, has been to increase the number of written wills, not to reduce the people who consult a lawyer for more complex drafting. Similarly, I expect contract-writing tools to help create more written contracts, not to reduce the important of lawyers who write and review more complex deals. The result will, hopefully, be more routinized, written business processes — but may result in freeing lawyers to spend more time drafting complex documents that exceed the abilities of programs to interpret alone.

The basics of document review can already be outsourced abroad in some cases, and using machine processing is rather similar. It helps with the routine and frees up time for the more complex.

The law is a complex human construction because society is a complex human construction. As long as it stays that way (and as long as people form a society, it will), it will take humans versed in its complexities to manage it fully.

At least at the University of California, San Diego, the process involves tech transfer officers — 6 for the life sciences, 3 for other kinds of technology, and 1 who does both — reviewing the research done at UCSD. They look for innovations that may be potentially turned into marketable intellectual property. According to Dr. Montisano, a life sciences tech transfer officer at UCSD, they do not “police faculty.” As a result, they sometimes do not learn of new technology until after publication, which immediately causes the loss of international patent rights, and puts U.S. patent rights on a 1-year timeline.

If they do manage to intercept the technology in time — either through researchers submitting it to them directly, or by discovering it after publication — they review the innovation, and may file a provisional patent application to preserve their rights (this allows publication). They then have a year to convert that to a full patent.

Once they have provisional protection in place, the office looks for a good licensee for the technology. They first put a description of the innovation on the UCSD web site, making it available to interested parties who may be seeking such technology. They also identify and actively target potential companies for licensing, focusing on those they know do work in the field and who may be interested in the technology.

The point, according to Dr. Montisano, is to get the technology out into the world through commercialization, not to make a fortune, and UCSD looks for licensees on this basis. Such a focus emphasizes the public nature of the university, and emphasizes the role of the tech transfer office as the buffer zone between private and public enterprise — they license innovations for money, but do so with a goal of benefitting the public.

Additionally, the distribution process also protects researchers from undue market influences. The university owns the invention, not the professor, or grad student, or research tech. 50% of the incoming money goes to the university as a whole, while the remaining 50% is split by the department between those who developed the invention and the department. Thus, even the incoming money is diluted and sifted, buffering the researchers themselves from direct contact with the commercial players.

More rules are in place when it comes to researchers profiting or being overly involved in the commercial enterprise while retaining their role at the university. A university researcher cannot be the executive of a licensee company nor a board member, but can sit on a scientific advisory board. Such a researcher can own shares in the company, though, suggesting at least one way for the market to more directly intrude on an individual academic. Nonetheless, to be full involved in directing a licensee, a researcher must leave the university and their post as an academic and fully enter the commercial world.

Finally, the office itself is insulated from the money involved. Although they bring in millions to the University of California, UCSD’s technology transfer office is funded entirely by the state. No funding comes through a percentage of license fees and no officer receives specific bonuses for signing deals. This emphasizes their focus on the public service of commercializing technology, rather than on their use as market-enablers.

Madey v. Duke

Even after Madey, many researchers continue to ignore patent protections, and continue their work as if they didn’t need to license technology. The result has been increasing claims by license-holders, and a growing sense by researchers that this is complicating their scientific pursuits and introducing extra costs and restrictions.

Universities, now large licensors themselves of new technology thanks to Bayh-Dole and technology transfer offices, have turned to, in the language of Professor Robin Feldman, “open transfer” agreements to lossen up these restrictions. Such agreements are added to agreements when universities license their technologies for industry to develop, and permit both the licensing university and any other nonprofit they allow to use the technology for education and research. This approach co-opts the mechanisms of the market, rather like open-source licensing does, to permit the continued free sharing and publishing in the academic community.

What do these clauses look like? In the case of the University of California, San Diego, Article 2.2 of the sample agreement for licensing captures this “open transfer” provision:

2.2 Reservation of Rights. UNIVERSITY reserves the right to:
(a) use the Invention, and Patent Rights for educational and research purposes;
(b) publish or otherwise disseminate any information about the Invention at any time; and
(c) allow other nonprofit institutions to use and publish or otherwise disseminate any information about Invention and Patent Rights for educational and research purposes.

Part (a) and (b) are relatively standard in all licensing agreements, commercial or not. Most industry licenses also permit the licensor to use their own technology. Part (c) is the interesting part, as it permits other nonprofit institutions to also use and even publish on the technology, provided it is for educational and research purposes. In other words, what the Federal Circuit has taken out of common law, university tech transfer offices have recreated through their own market-focused and neoliberal license agreements.

This approach suggests that, despite efforts to commercialize the “ivory tower,” there remain creative resistance that seeks to maintain the traditional values and benefits of an academic research environment.

There are, of course, numerous challenges for tech transfer offices. Within the university, most scientists are “in it for the science” and not for the money, according to Dr. Montisano. University researchers have the tendency to publish first, forcing his office to chase after them to try to prevent the loss of patent rights (publishing first loses most international rights immediately, though U.S. law allows for a year’s grace). Outside the university, industry values focus on profit first — even if many researchers have been taught to value the science by universities first.

Diagram from James A. Severson, Ph.D., of Veratect Corporation, Kirkland, WA

Industry prefers to restrict use of its technologies to those explicitly licensed—and such licensees generally must pay for the privilege of their use. Methods and materials are kept close, as trade secrets, unless licensed out for approved use. Competitors must be kept from access to preserve corporate profits. Universities, on the other hand, have generally taken a much broader approach to technology use and sharing. Researchers in universities must “publish or perish,” and getting describing methods and approaches garners a researcher the most benefit when readership is broad. One-upping academic competitors is still a key goal, but the method is through demonstration and publishing successes, not through profit-making and market dominance.

The Bayh-Dole Act attempted to bridge the divide, and technology transfer offices are the means of its implementation. Prior to Bayh-Dole, ”legislators were concerned that for a variety of reasons, the government” — formerly the federal government owned the research it funded — ”had proved ineffective as a shepherd of the inventions created with federal research dollars” (see Open Source, Open Access, and Open Transfer: Market Approaches to Research Bottlenecks). By many measures, the results have been phenomenal: at the end of fiscal year 2009, UCSD alone had more than 400 licenses active around the world, with a steady increase since 2000. Also in 2009, UCSD’s technology transfer office distributed more than fifteen million dollars to inventors ($9 million), joint titleholders ($432 thousand) research labs and departments ($2.5 million), and the UC general fund ($2.5 million).

All the money suggests some obvious problems created by the “intrusion” of a neoliberal, market-focused approach into the “ivory tower” university environment (assuming such pure extremes ever existed). For a cash-strapped state government like California’s, why not emphasize this market-connected activity and turn universities into self-supporting institutions? Such an approach risks compromising the university focus of basic research and — perhaps even more importantly — ignores the less commodifiable teaching and research done at such institutions, especially in the humanities. Even within the sciences, forcing research to fit into license agreements and patent arrangements may impede the flow of data, slow down innovation by restricting information sharing, and, ultimately, force university researchers away from basic sciences that form the core of future applications.

Related articles

• Technology Transfer and the Third Way (kfwhite.wordpress.com)
• Columbia University’s Tech Transfer Guru, Orin Herskowitz, on Turning IT, Biotech, and Cleantech Ideas Into Businesses (xconomy.com)

The familiar legend of privacy law holds that Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis “invented” the right to privacy in 1890, and that William Prosser aided its development by recognizing four privacy torts in 1960. In this Article, Professors Richards and Solove contend that Warren, Brandeis, and Prosser did not invent privacy law, [but] took it down a new path. Well before 1890, a considerable body of Anglo-American law protected confidentiality, which safeguards the information people share with others. Warren, Brandeis, and later Prosser turned away from the law of confidentiality to create a new conception of privacy based on the individual’s “inviolate personality.”

According to Richards and Solove, then, the “right to privacy” as we now understand it actually grew out of an earlier recognition of the right to confidentiality in certain situations. Warren and Brandeis then took this original principle of confidentiality, embodied in common-law decisions such as the English case of Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), and shifted it to focus on a newly developed right to privacy. Their goal? To protect individuals from a perceived new threat to their reputations and self-ownership by the growth of a new combination of technologies: photographs and new, faster printing presses of the booming newspaper industry. Essentially, the technologies that enable People magazine today galvanized Warren and Brandeis to enunciate a “right to privacy.” They produced their groundbreaking article not because of the threat of unwarranted government searches, or even the potential for telegraph operators to reveal confidential business information entrusted to them by customers, but rather because of the new potential for mass-market gossip.

The earlier — and still existing, especially in the United Kingdom, which never adopted Warren and Brandeis’ positions — right to confidentiality, on the other hand, focused on relationships: “Rather than protecting the information we hide away in secrecy,” write Richards and Solove, “confidentiality protects the information we share with others based upon our expectations of trust and reliance in relationships” (p. 125).

In short, if one intends to look at how what we call “privacy” today was perceived by Americans in the nineteenth century, one needs to begin by looking at confidentiality, not privacy as the cornerstone of such an investigation. The concern was not so much with what was secret, but rather what was shared via trust relationships. Basically, given the much smaller size and power of police agencies in the nineteenth century, most Americans were less concerned with law enforcement intrusion than with competitors and gossips. If they were concerned with government intrusion, it was in the context of protecting the home against invasion.

The second concern is exactly what Warren and Brandeis picked up on, while the first has been dealt with in American law by a patchwork of remedies, from trade secrets to copyright to “unjust enrichment,” but never developed quite as fully as in English law once Warren and Brandeis sent American jurisprudence down the path of “privacy = protection from gossip.”

Even postal mail, long considered sacrosanct from meddling by either governments or individuals, was primarily protected by postal regulations and morality. It was not until 1878 that the Supreme Court, in Ex parte Jackson, finally extended Fourth Amendment protections from papers in a person’s home to papers in transit through the mails. That this happened in the late 1800s is no surprise; this was also the beginning of the modern administrative state and the modern business monopoly. New technologies had finally forced the law to take steps to catch up.

Related articles

• Stepping stone to Internet privacy: the telegraph (inpropriapersona.com)
• The telegraph and business invasions of privacy (inpropriapersona.com)
• Extending the Fourth Amendment beyond the home: Ex parte Jackson (1878) (inpropriapersona.com)

Much as blogs have bitten into the news business and YouTube has challenged television, digital self-publishing is creating a powerful new niche in books that's threatening the traditional industry. Once derided as “vanity” titles by the publishing establishment, self-published books suddenly are able to thrive by circumventing the establishment.

via Digital Self-Publishing Shakes Up Traditional Book Industry – WSJ.com.

It’s finally possible to skip the traditional publishers altogether, publishing yourself (via Amazon, for example), and get discovered by fans directly! Of course, you’re own your own with editing (contract it out? ask the significant other?) and advertising (social media, anyone?), and there are no advances on your sales.

On the other hand, there’s no publisher telling you what you can and cannot say (but then again, there’s no publisher/editor telling you what you should say and shouldn’t say…), and no sending your manuscript in — and then never hearing back with more than a form letter.

Instead, you write great stuff, put it up through Amazon, some fans discover you and… presto! You’re rich & famous! Amazon’s discovery algorithms help with this (the more people read and like your work, the more often it gets recommended), but you still need to get that critical mass started (which is one thing a publisher can do for you).

So this is great for fiction. I wonder if it has any possibilities for academic work? How would a department rate your self-published book in terms of tenure decisions? By number of copies sold? (But academic works never sell much.) Somehow, I suspect the academic world will be very, very slow to accept self-published works as “real” publications…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Want Your Self-Published Book in Stores? Weigh the Options (pbs.org)
• The New Age Of Self-Publishing (litopia.com)

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has decided to reregulate Internet lines to protect net neutrality, siding with consumer groups and Internet companies worried that Internet providers have too much power.

via FCC to Overhaul Regulation of Internet Lines – WSJ.com.

Is this good for consumers? Good for business? We’ll have to see. At the very least, it means that Obama’s FCC is not interested in simply maintaining the status quo.