If you plan to attend, please first email Henry Butler at hnbutler-at-gmu-dot-edu.

This morning our dear colleague, Larry Ribstein, passed away.  The intellectual life of everyone who knew him, of this blog, and of the legal academy at large is deeply diminished for his passing.

For me, as for many others, Larry was an important influence, not only intellectually but personally, as well.  Larry was the godfather of this blog, which got its start when a few of us, including Bill Sjostrom, Josh, Thom and me, pinch hit for Larry at Ideoblog in November 2005.  It took eight of us, including my dad, to fill his shoes, and still his traffic went down.  More than anyone else, Larry was instrumental in my decision to leave law teaching to work at Microsoft.  Completely unsure what to do and worried about how it would affect my ability to return to law teaching, I called Larry, who had no doubt.  He sealed the deal by pointing out that a move like that one would open some completely unanticipated, and potentially great, career paths and telling me not to worry so much about getting back to law teaching.  He was right, of course, and, thus also an important influence on the creation of the International Center for Law and Economics.  And Larry was a friend, one of those I always looked forward to seeing at ALEA and other conferences, more than once providing the necessary marginal incentive to attend.

We grieve for Ann, Sarah and Susannah and mourn his passing.

UPDATE:

The outpouring in the blogosphere from Larry’s friends, admirers, colleagues, and the like is, not surprisingly, moving.  As we find them and receive them from friends who ask us to post them here, we will continue to collect remembrances here.

Don Boudreaux

I didn’t know Larry very well, but on those four or five occasions when we were together at seminars I unfailingly learned from – and enjoyed – his contributions.  He was a scholar who wasted no words; every one – verbally from his mouth, and written from his keyboard – moved the discussion forward.

Saul Levmore

Larry’s passing is a sad and grave loss. I liked his independence of mind.

Daniel Martin Katz

This is a sad day for the American Legal Academy

Pejman Yousefzadeh

Professor Ribstein was a decent, kind man, who was also a brilliant scholar with penetrating insights. Academia in general–and legal scholarship in particular–will be poorer for his absence.

Francis Pileggi

Although I only “knew him through blogging” and via emails and cross-linking on each of our blogs, I feel a great loss and a void by his absence.

Cynthia Williams

It is hard to imagine the University of Illinois College of Law without Larry.

Champaign News-Gazette (with quotes from Andy Morriss, Nuno Garoupa, Henry Butler and Bruce Smith)

Friends and colleagues of Larry Ribstein say they’ll remember him as a first-rate legal scholar and original thinker who enjoyed debate and was an expert in business law.  They also recall him as a generous person who was a gifted photographer and an authority on movies and the law.

Washington Legal Foundation

Larry’s work, educational innovations, and always original scholarship were an inspiration to us at WLF, and we will miss him.

Federalist Society

A friend of the Federalist Society’s, Professor Ribstein was a man of great courage, intellect, and wisdom.

Alan Palmiter

We owe it to ourselves and especially to our students that Larry stay with us.

Tom Ginsburg

Larry was great colleague and friend, whose passion for ideas was simply unrivaled. we will miss him greatly.

Mark Peecher

Though invariably busy, Larry seemed to always say yes to big asks that involved substantial travel and time in order to speak with others on topical, important issues — a consummate academic citizen and scholar. Like so many of you, I shall greatly miss Larry Ribstein.

Walter Olson

Legal academia is in mourning for one of its most distinguished and multitalented figures, Larry Ribstein, a key scholar in corporate law and a provocative and rigorous exponent of law and economics thinking. Larry was an early blogger (at Ideoblog and more recently Truth on the Market), an influential critic of prosecutorial and regulatory excess, and a key voice in the debate on what law schools should do. He was also, I am grateful to say, an important friend of this site over many years.

Gordon Smith

As I have reflected about Larry’s passing over the past day, I realize that he was my friend because we shared a love of ideas, and he was my mentor because he taught me the importance of getting those ideas right

Dave Hoffman

Larry Ribstein, who died earlier this week, was a galvanic force as a scholar and blogger.  I join those who’ve expressed sadness and loss at his untimely passing.

Ellen Podgor

He was an extraordinary scholar and a welcomed and strong member of the academic blogosphere

Peter Mahler

I am grateful that in this fashion I got to know Professor Larry Ribstein, who passed away unexpectedly last weekend at the peak of his prolific, dazzling career as a leading academic voice and mentor to many in diverse fields of business law and particularly in the area of unincorporated business entities.

Henry Manne

On a personal note, I have lost a delightful and valued friend, a professional and intellectual “son” who was not supposed to predecease his mentor, and my intellectual biographer . . . who taught me that I had said far more than I ever understood.  I join the others who loved Larry in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to Ann, Sarah and Susanna.

Andy Morriss

Larry wouldn’t accept less than the best from anyone, including himself. We’re all the poorer for his untimely death; we’re all the richer for his body of work and his influence on so many. His kindness and generosity knew no bounds.  I suspect he’s already been named Associate Archangel for Research in heaven and doubled scholarly output there.

Keith Sharfman

Like everyone else, I am shaken by Larry’s untimely passing. He was a fine scholar and a truly nice person. His *generosity* is what I remember most about him, especially as relates to younger scholars.

Tom Kirkendall

Beyond his special intelligence and intellectual honesty, though, the trait that drew me most to Larry was his humanity. Although he decried how our government’s senseless criminalization of business was destroying jobs and hindering the creation of wealth, Larry cared even more deeply about the incalculable damage to executives and their families that resulted from the absurdly-long prison terms that were often the product of such dubious prosecutions. When family members of wrongfully prosecuted executives came upon Larry’s writings, many of them would reach out to Larry for support, which he generously provided to them. And I will never forget Larry’s touching note to me after he read a blog post that I wrote on the death of Bill Olis, Jamie Olis’ father.  Larry Ribstein – husband, father, lawyer, teacher, colleague, writer, counselor, friend.  A fine legacy, indeed.

Bill Sjostrom

Larry was a brilliant, prolific, and provocative scholar who will be sorely missed.

Paul Rubin

This news is devastating.  I had recently discussed his work on movies, and tried to induce him to edit a special issue for Managerial and Decision Economics.  Aside from his remarkable publishing record, his paper “Wall Street and Vine: Hollywood’s View of Business” shows that Larry had seen and remembered more movies than anyone I know.  A true tragedy.

Thom Lambert

Although I didn’t know him as well as some of my co-bloggers did, Larry very much influenced my own development as an academic. He provided excellent feedback on my own work, gave me my start as a law blogger (writing as a guest at Ideoblog), reinvigorated Truth on the Market, and continually educated, challenged, inspired, and entertained me with his prolific blogging.

J.W. Verret

When I think of what it means to be a legal scholar, in my head I will always have a picture of Larry Ribstein.

Josh Wright

The legal academy will be worse off for losing Larry’s voice as a scholar.  Larry will be greatly missed here at Truth on the Market, and as a friend.

Todd Henderson

I will miss him beyond words. I will consider it a life well lived if when I die there is at least one person left behind who feels as I do about Larry.

Larry Solum

I have fond memories of many long discussions with Ribstein.  He defended his vision of law with a tenacity and rigor that is rare, even among law professors.  Just a few days ago, Larry and I had planned to get together at the AALS meeting in Washington.  I will miss him!

Stephen Bainbridge

The first time I met Larry, I thought he would make a brilliant Mephistopheles. He was lean in body with sharp and angular facial features, ever so slightly swarthy, and somehow just a little scary. As I got to know him over many years, of course, I learned that he was a brilliant scholar with a wide array of interests, an incisive mind, a vast store of learning, and a talent for getting to the heart of the matter, but also that he was a great person and someone whose company was always a treat.

Ted Frank

But beyond the loss to legal scholarship is the loss of a good person. Larry was also a friend, but an intellectually honest one who wouldn’t hesitate to tell you when he thought you were wrong (which happened several times a year to me). But that made it all the more flattering when he demonstrated support, and he was an early supporter of mine when it was far from clear that my hare-brained quixotic scheme would accomplish anything. I’m going to miss him a lot. Condolences to his family and friends.

Kim Krawiec

Following up on Dan’s post, via Larry Solum comes the horrible, horrible news that Larry Ribstein passed away this morning.  This has shocked and devastated our household and much of the legal academy.  I’ve known Larry for many, many years.  He was a supportive senior colleague at the beginning of my career (and remained one until the end).  He was a prolific and interesting scholar with wide-ranging interests, from “uncorporations” to polygamy. He was also a good friend.  He’ll be missed by many.

Ilya Somin

No doubt there will be many analyses and appreciations of Larry’s outstanding contributions to scholarship over the coming days and weeks. My personal favorite among his many excellent works is his recent book The Law Market (coauthored with Erin O’Hara), which is perhaps the best recent book on the potential benefits of competition between state legal systems in American federalism. Larry is also well-known in the legal blogosphere for his insightful posts at Truth on the Market, where he wrote an excellent post on ABA accreditation of law schools just a few days ago.

Jeff Lipshaw

More than anything, he was alive with ideas and personality and pungent observations, whether or not you liked or agreed with them (and sometimes I didn’t).  I was proud of his praise and thanks when we finished our projects and proud that he was willing to have me as a writing partner.

Matt Bodie

I’m shocked, horrified, and saddened to hear of Larry Ribstein’s passing.  There will be time to consider his wide-ranging, innovative, and incisive scholarship in the days, months, and years to come.  For now, I offer my sympathy to his family and colleagues at Illinois.  A very sad day for legal and corporate law academia.

Nancy Rapoport

Not only was he exceptionally smart and creative, but he seemed like a very nice person.  I’ll miss reading his work, and my heart goes out to his friends and family.

Jonathan Adler

I was terribly saddened to learn that Professor Larry Ribstein suffered a stroke and died yesterday.  He was on the faculty when I studied at George Mason, though I never had the good fortune to have him as one of my professors.  I have, however, learned quite a bit from his scholarly and other writings, as well as from our occasional conversations.  He will be missed.

Erik Gerding

The label of “ideological” is often used pejoratively and casually to dismiss arguments.  But Larry was ideological in a truer sense.  He was committed to rigorously and systematically working out ideas, ideals, and their consequences.  Larry’s contribution to the academy far exceeded even his large body of scholarship.  I miss him.

C.E. Petit

Our politics did not match well, but our shared interest in the interface between individuals and their business interests led to some interesting exchanges over the years… and helped sharpen my thoughts on how authors and other creators of intellectual property should arrange their own business affairs.

Bruce Smith (Dean, University of Illinois College of Law)

Larry was a scholar of incandescent intellect, breathtaking range, and unflagging energy,” said Dean Bruce Smith. “He cared passionately about his students and about transforming legal education to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. He invested selflessly in the professional development of junior faculty members – whether at Illinois or at other institutions. He cared deeply about the College of Law and contributed incalculably to it through his ideas, his engagement, and his counsel. And he cherished his family with a love that was boundless. Larry was a towering figure and an incomparable person, and he will be dearly missed.

Stefan Padfield

Thus, while there is obviously much in terms of scholarship that Larry is worth remembering for, what I will primarily remember him for is his inspiring kindness.

Donald Clarke

So broad is Larry’s impact that it even reaches the field of Chinese law. He had been to China and was consulted on the drafting of (what else?) China’s Partnership Law.  It is truly sad that such a terrific scholar and colleague has been lost to us.

Renee Newman Knake

I met Larry just over a year ago while giving a talk at Illinois, and found him to be incredibly generous to me as a junior scholar, both in encouraging my work and offering an opportunity to participate in the recent Truth on the Market symposium Unlocking the Law: Deregulating the Legal Profession.

Congratulations are in order for all of those involved. Eric Helland, Thom Lambert, Larry Ribstein, Paul Rubin, Mike Sykuta, J.W. Verret, and Josh Wright are among the most insightful law & economics thinkers I know. Meanwhile, our excellent commenters turn the posts into great conversations and often provide thought-provoking points.  Some of our regular, pseudonymous commenters, in particular (you know who you are–and so do we!), have engendered some of our best–and most interesting–disputes.

Explaining the nomination, the Journal captured both the spirit and the mission of TOTM:

This blog’s academic commentary on economics, antitrust law and corporate governance is never stuffy. These profs make astute observations and find concrete examples to make their points—and very often, they think the point is that there should be less government regulation all around.

But we’re not done yet.  Until December 30, polls are open over at the ABA Journal to vote for your favorite blog in each of the categories.  We urge all of our readers to go to http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100 to register and to vote for Truth on the Market in the Business Law category. At the moment we’re neck and neck with our friend Prof. Bainbridge for the top slot.  It may be close, but the 8 of us should be able to best the 1 of him!

Thanks again to all our readers, commenters and to my fellow bloggers.

Hal is Managing Director and Principal at Navigant Economics. He has written, thought and advised extensively on antitrust, finance and general regulatory issues.  His SSRN page is here, and it includes co-authors like David Teece, Dan Rubinfeld, Jerry Hausman, Greg Sidak, Bob Crandall, and Bob Litan, among many others. He is the co-author of the book Broadband in Europe: How Brussels Can Wire the Information Society (Kluwer/Springer Press 2005). and his article have appeared in, among there, American Economics Association Papers and Proceedings, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Journal of Industrial Economics, Journal of Network Industries, Journal of Regulatory Economics, Review of Network Economics, Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, and Yale Journal on Regulation. He has also served as Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business.

On the policy front, his essays have appeared in several leading newspapers and magazines, including Antitrust, Forbes, The Economist’s Voice, Harvard Business Review, Health Affairs, The Milken Institute Review, Regulation, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. His M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics are from the Johns Hopkins University and his B.S. magna cum laude in economics is from Tulane University.

Perhaps of particular interest to our readers, one of Hal’s most recent articles (with Gerald Faulhaber) is on wireless broadband competition and the FCC’s most recent wireless competition report, a not-uncommon subject around here (see, e.g., here).  It’s an excellent paper, and you can find a link to the article and a podcast of Hal discussing the paper with Jerry Brito here.

We look forward to a stimulating set of posts from Hal — and he isn’t shy, so don’t hesitate to weigh in in the comments!

Entry deregulation would also expand individuals’ options for preparing for a career in legal services, including attending vocational and online schools and taking apprenticeships without acquiring formal legal education. Established law schools would face pressure to reduce tuition and shorten the time to obtain a degree, which would substantially reduce the debt incurred by those who choose to go to those schools.

Supporters of occupational licensing to restrict the number of lawyers in the U.S. are wrong to assert that deregulation would unleash a wave of unscrupulous or incompetent new entrants into the profession. Large companies seeking advice in complex financial deals would still look to established lawyers, most of whom would probably be trained at traditional law schools but may work for a corporation instead of a law firm.

Others, seeking simpler legal services such as a simple divorce or will, would have an expanded choice of legal-service providers, which they would choose only after consulting the Internet or some other modern channel of information about a provider’s track record. Just as the medical field has created physician assistants to deal with less serious cases, the legal profession can delegate simple tasks.

Licensing and regulation of lawyers, long questioned by scholars, is emerging as an important public issue.  Legal costs are rising for individuals and firms with increases in litigation and regulation.  These costs tax business growth and entrepreneurship and impede ordinary Americans’ access to the civil justice system.  Meanwhile, the development of new business structures and technologies and significant regulatory moves toward opening up competition for legal services in the UK and elsewhere are forcing policymakers to address lawyer licensing and regulation.   A new book on deregulating the legal profession by Crandall, Winston and Vikram Maheshri should also help to focus scholarly and public attention on this issue.

Truth on the Market is planning an online symposium that will take place over two days, SEPTEMBER 19 and 20, covering these issues, and building upon our successful “Free to Choose?” symposium last fall on behavioral law and economics.   The “Unlocking the Law” symposium is designed to start an intellectual dialogue on this topic, bringing together legal scholars and economists with a variety of views and perspectives on the law and economics of the legal profession, regulation, antitrust.

Some questions the Symposium will consider are:

• Should lawyer licensing be abolished?
• What alternative regulatory approaches or structures should be considered?
• What would a deregulated market for legal services look like?
• Does lawyer regulation raise issues different from those of licensing and regulating other professions?
• Does delegating to lawyers the power to restrict the right to practice law violate the antitrust laws?
• What are the First Amendment implications of regulating what non-lawyers can say about the law?
• To what extent can national or global competition alone break down barriers to law practice even without deregulation?
• What are the implications of deregulation of the profession for law schools?

A great group of participants with a variety of perspectives on these issues will join the regular TOTM bloggers to discuss these issues.  Confirmed so far are:

• Hans Bader
• James Cooper
• Robert Crandall
• Nuno Garoupa
• Bill Henderson
• Dan Katz
• Bruce Kobayashi
• George Leef
• Jon Macey
• Tom Morgan
• Richard Painter
• Eric Rasmusen
• Eric Talley

It should be fun.  We hope you’ll join the discussion in the comments.

Instead of letting consumers choose, other search companies including Microsoft are funding FairSearch.org to lobby regulators and politicians to stop what it calls “Google’s march toward an ‘unregulatable monopoly.’” Legal academics Geoffrey Manne and Joshua Wright wrote a recent article entitled “If Search Neutrality is the Answer, What’s the Question?” They ridicule the regulatory idea of a “Federal Search Commission” to monitor search providers. Google would lose its position if it gave its properties such as YouTube unfair preference in its search results. By serving consumers well, Google makes it harder for competitors, but that’s not an antitrust violation.

The whole thing is worth reading, of course.

For the few of you out there who have not downloaded our paper yet, it’s available here.

The basics:

Allegations of “search bias” have led to increased scrutiny of Google, including active investigations in the European Union and Texas, a possible FTC investigation, and sharply-worded inquiries from members of Congress. But what does “search bias” really mean? Does it demand preemptive “search neutrality” regulation, requiring government oversight of how search results are ranked? Is antitrust intervention required to protect competition? Or can market forces deal with these concerns?

A panel of leading thinkers on Internet law will explore these questions at a luncheon hosted by TechFreedom, a new digital policy think tank. The event will take place at the Capitol Visitor Center room SVC-210/212 onTuesday, June 14 from 12:30 to 2:30pm, and include a complimentary lunch. CNET’s Declan McCullagh, a veteran tech policy journalist, will moderate a panel of four legal experts:

• Prof. Frank Pasquale, Seton Hall University School of Law, author of Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness and Accountability in the Law of Search
• Prof. Geoffrey Manne, Lewis & Clark Law School, TechFreedom Adjunct Fellow, and Director of the International Center for Law & Economics, author of If Search Neutrality Is the Answer, What’s the Question?
• Prof. James Grimmelman, New York Law School, author of The Structure of Search Engine Law
• Prof. Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law, author of Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism

More details are here, and the event will be streaming live from that link as well.  If all goes well, it will also be accessible right here:

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/viewer.swf

Live Broadcasting by Ustream

Filed under: administrative, announcements, essential facilities, google, law and economics, monopolization, regulation, technology Tagged: Declan McCullagh, Eric Goldman, frank pasquale, geoffrey manne, google, james grimmelmann, techfreedom, Web search engine ]]> http://truthonthemarket.com/2011/06/14/techfreedom-search-engine-regulation-event-today/feed/ 0 geoffmanne http://truthonthemarket.com/2011/05/25/advance-praise-for-manne-wright-book-on-regulating-innovation/ http://truthonthemarket.com/2011/05/25/advance-praise-for-manne-wright-book-on-regulating-innovation/#comments Wed, 25 May 2011 15:57:48 +0000 Geoffrey Manne http://truthonthemarket.com/?p=11380 ]]> Our book, Competition Policy and Patent Law Under Uncertainty: Regulating Innovation will be published by Cambridge University Press in July.  The book’s page on the CUP website is here.

I just looked at the site to check on the publication date and I was delighted to see the advance reviews of the book.  They are pretty incredible, and we’re honored to have such impressive scholars, among the very top in our field and among our most significant influences, saying such nice things about the book:

After a century of exponential growth in innovation, we have reached an era of serious doubts about the sustainability of the trend. Manne and Wright have put together a first-rate collection of essays addressing two of the important policy levers – competition law and patent law – that society can pull to stimulate or retard technological progress. Anyone interested in the future of innovation should read it.

Daniel A. Crane, University of Michigan

Here, in one volume, is a collection of papers by outstanding scholars who offer readers insightful new discussions of a wide variety of patent policy problems and puzzles. If you seek fresh, bright thoughts on these matters, this is your source.

Harold Demsetz, University of California, Los Angeles

This volume is an essential compendium of the best current thinking on a range of intersecting subjects – antitrust and patent law, dynamic versus static competition analysis, incentives for innovation, and the importance of humility in the formulation of policies concerning these subjects, about which all but first principles are uncertain and disputed. The essays originate in two conferences organized by the editors, who attracted the leading scholars in their respective fields to make contributions; the result is that rara avis, a contributed volume more valuable even than the sum of its considerable parts.

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge, US Court of Appeals, Washington, DC

Competition Policy and Patent Law under Uncertainty is a splendid collection of essays edited by two top scholars of competition policy and intellectual property. The contributions come from many of the world’s leading experts in patent law, competition policy, and industrial economics. This anthology takes on a broad range of topics in a comprehensive and even-handed way, including the political economy of patents, the patent process, and patent law as a system of property rights. It also includes excellent essays on post-issuance patent practices, the types of practices that might be deemed anticompetitive, the appropriate role of antitrust law, and even network effects and some legal history. This volume is a must-read for every serious scholar of patent and antitrust law. I cannot think of another book that offers this broad and rich a view of its subject.

Herbert Hovenkamp, University of Iowa

With these contributors:

Robert Cooter, Richard A. Epstein, Stan J. Liebowitz, Stephen E. Margolis, Daniel F. Spulber, Marco Iansiti, Greg Richards, David Teece, Joshua D. Wright, Keith N. Hylton, Haizhen Lee, Vincenzo Denicolò, Luigi Alberto Franzoni, Mark Lemley, Douglas G. Lichtman, Michael Meurer, Adam Mossoff, Henry Smith, F. Scott Kieff, Anne Layne-Farrar, Gerard Llobet, Jorge Padilla, Damien Geradin and Bruce H. Kobayashi

I would have said the book was self-recommending.  But I’ll take these recommendations any day.

If Search Neutrality Is the Answer, What’s the Question?

Geoffrey A. Manne

(Lewis & Clark Law School and ICLE)

and

Joshua D. Wright

(George Mason Law School & Department of Economics and ICLE)

In this paper we evaluate both the economic and non-economic costs and benefits of search bias. In Part I we define search bias and search neutrality, terms that have taken on any number of meanings in the literature, and survey recent regulatory concerns surrounding search bias. In Part II we discuss the economics and technology of search. In Part III we evaluate the economic costs and benefits of search bias. We demonstrate that search bias is the product of the competitive process and link the search bias debate to the economic and empirical literature on vertical integration and the generally-efficient and pro-competitive incentives for a vertically integrated firm to discriminate in favor of its own content. Building upon this literature and its application to the search engine market, we conclude that neither an ex ante regulatory restriction on search engine bias nor the imposition of an antitrust duty to deal upon Google would benefit consumers. In Part V we evaluate the frequent claim that search engine bias causes other serious, though less tangible, social and cultural harms. As with the economic case for search neutrality, we find these non-economic justifications for restricting search engine bias unconvincing, and particularly susceptible to the well-known Nirvana Fallacy of comparing imperfect real world institutions with romanticized and unrealistic alternatives

Search bias is not a function of Google’s large share of overall searches. Rather, it is a feature of competition in the search engine market, as evidenced by the fact that its rivals also exercise editorial and algorithmic control over what information is provided to consumers and in what manner. Consumers rightly value competition between search engine providers on this margin; this fact alone suggests caution in regulating search bias at all, much less with an ex ante regulatory schema which defines the margins upon which search providers can compete. The strength of economic theory and evidence demonstrating that regulatory restrictions on vertical integration are costly to consumers, impede innovation, and discourage experimentation in a dynamic marketplace support the conclusion that neither regulation of search bias nor antitrust intervention can be justified on economic terms. Search neutrality advocates touting the non-economic virtues of their proposed regime should bear the burden of demonstrating that they exist beyond the Nirvana Fallacy of comparing an imperfect private actor to a perfect government decision-maker, and further, that any such benefits outweigh the economic costs.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PAPER