Archives For administrative

In my fifteen years as a law professor, I’ve become convinced that there’s a hole in the law school curriculum.  When it comes to regulation, we focus intently on the process of regulating and the interpretation of rules (see, e.g., typical administrative law and “leg/reg” courses), but we rarely teach students what, as a matter of substance, distinguishes a good regulation from a bad one.  That’s unfortunate, because lawyers often take the lead in crafting regulatory approaches. 

In the fall of 2017, I published a book seeking to fill this hole.  That book, How to Regulate: A Guide for Policymakers, is the inspiration for a symposium that will occur this Friday (Feb. 8) at the University of Missouri Law School.

The symposium, entitled Protecting the Public While Fostering Innovation and Entrepreneurship: First Principles for Optimal Regulation, will bring together policymakers and regulatory scholars who will go back to basics. Participants will consider two primary questions:

(1) How, as a substantive matter, should regulation be structured in particular areas? (Specifically, what regulatory approaches would be most likely to forbid the bad while chilling as little of the good as possible and while keeping administrative costs in check? In other words, what rules would minimize the sum of error and decision costs?), and

(2) What procedures would be most likely to generate such optimal rules?


The symposium webpage includes the schedule for the day (along with a button to Livestream the event), but here’s a quick overview.

I’ll set the stage by discussing the challenge policymakers face in trying to accomplish three goals simultaneously: ban bad instances of behavior, refrain from chilling good ones, and keep rules simple enough to be administrable.

We’ll then hear from a panel of experts about the principles that would best balance those competing concerns in their areas of expertise. Specifically:

  • Jerry Ellig (George Washington University; former chief economist of the FCC) will discuss telecommunications policy;
  • TOTM’s own Gus Hurwitz (Nebraska Law) will consider regulation of Internet platforms; and
  • Erika Lietzan (Mizzou Law) will examine the regulation of therapeutic drugs and medical devices.

Hopefully, we can identify some common threads among the substantive principles that should guide effective regulation in these disparate areas

Before we turn to consider regulatory procedures, we will hear from our keynote speaker, Commissioner Hester Peirce of the SEC. As The Economist recently reported, Commissioner Peirce has been making waves with her speeches, many of which have gone back to basics and asked why the government is intervening and whether it’s doing so in an optimal fashion.

Following Commissioner Peirce’s address, we will hear from the following panelists about how regulatory procedures should be structured in order to generate substantively optimal rules:

  • Bridget Dooling (George Washington University; former official in the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs);
  • Ken Davis (former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia and member of the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project);
  • James Broughel (Senior Fellow at the Mercatus Center; expert on state-level regulatory review procedures); and
  • Justin Smith (former counsel to Missouri governor; led the effort to streamline the Missouri regulatory code).

As you can see, this Friday is going to be a great day at Mizzou Law. If you’re close enough to join us in person, please come. Otherwise, please join us via Livestream.

In the opening seconds of what was surely one of the worst oral arguments in a high-profile case that I have ever heard, Pantelis Michalopoulos, arguing for petitioners against the FCC’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) expertly captured both why the side he was representing should lose and the overall absurdity of the entire net neutrality debate: “This order is a stab in the heart of the Communications Act. It would literally write ‘telecommunications’ out of the law. It would end the communications agency’s oversight over the main communications service of our time.”

The main communications service of our time is the Internet. The Communications and Telecommunications Acts were written before the advent of the modern Internet, for an era when the telephone was the main communications service of our time. The reality is that technological evolution has written “telecommunications” out of these Acts – the “telecommunications services” they were written to regulate are no longer the important communications services of the day.

The basic question of the net neutrality debate is whether we expect Congress to weigh in on how regulators should respond when an industry undergoes fundamental change, or whether we should instead allow those regulators to redefine the scope of their own authority. In the RIFO case, petitioners (and, more generally, net neutrality proponents) argue that agencies should get to define their own authority. Those on the other side of the issue (including me) argue that that it is up to Congress to provide agencies with guidance in response to changing circumstances – and worry that allowing independent and executive branch agencies broad authority to act without Congressional direction is a recipe for unfettered, unchecked, and fundamentally abusive concentrations of power in the hands of the executive branch.

These arguments were central to the DC Circuit’s evaluation of the prior FCC net neutrality order – the Open Internet Order. But rather than consider the core issue of the case, the four hours of oral arguments this past Friday were instead a relitigation of long-ago addressed ephemeral distinctions, padded out with irrelevance and esoterica, and argued with a passion available only to those who believe in faerie tales and monsters under their bed. Perhaps some revelled in hearing counsel for both sides clumsily fumble through strained explanations of the difference between standalone telecommunications services and information services that are by definition integrated with them, or awkward discussions about how ISPs may implement hypothetical prioritization technologies that have not even been developed. These well worn arguments successfully demonstrated, once again, how many angels can dance upon the head of a single pin – only never before have so many angels been so irrelevant.

This time around, petitioners challenging the order were able to scare up some intervenors to make novel arguments on their behalf. Most notably, they were able to scare up a group of public safety officials to argue that the FCC had failed to consider arguments that the RIFO would jeopardize public safety services that rely on communications networks. I keep using the word “scare” because these arguments are based upon incoherent fears peddled by net neutrality advocates in order to find unsophisticated parties to sign on to their policy adventures. The public safety fears are about as legitimate as concerns that the Easter Bunny might one day win the Preakness – and merited as much response from the FCC as a petition from the Racehorse Association of America demanding the FCC regulate rabbits.

In the end, I have no idea how the DC Circuit is going to come down in this case. Public Safety concerns – like declarations of national emergencies – are often given undue and unwise weight. And there is a legitimately puzzling, if fundamentally academic, argument about a provision of the Communications Act (47 USC 257(c)) that Congress repealed after the Order was adopted and that was an noteworthy part of the notice the FCC gave when the Order was proposed that could lead the Court to remand the Order back to the Commission.

In the end, however, this case is unlikely to address the fundamental question of whether the FCC has any business regulating Internet access services. If the FCC loses, we’ll be back here in another year or two; if the FCC wins, we’ll be back here the next time a Democrat is in the White House. And the real tragedy is that every minute the FCC spends on the interminable net neutrality non-debate is a minute not spent on issues like closing the rural digital divide or promoting competitive entry into markets by next generation services.

So much wasted time. So many billable hours. So many angels dancing on the head of a pin. If only they were the better angels of our nature.


Postscript: If I sound angry about the endless fights over net neutrality, it’s because I am. I live in one of the highest-cost, lowest-connectivity states in the country. A state where much of the territory is covered by small rural carriers for whom the cost of just following these debates can mean delaying the replacement of an old switch, upgrading a circuit to fiber, or wiring a street. A state in which if prioritization were to be deployed it would be so that emergency services would be able to work over older infrastructure or so that someone in a rural community could remotely attend classes at the University or consult with a primary care physician (because forget high speed Internet – we have counties without doctors in them). A state in which if paid prioritization were to be developed it would be to help raise capital to build out service to communities that have never had high-speed Internet access.

So yes: the fact that we might be in for another year of rule making followed by more litigation because some firefighters signed up for the wrong wireless service plan and then were duped into believing a technological, economic, and political absurdity about net neutrality ensuring they get free Internet access does make me angry. Worse, unlike the hypothetical harms net neutrality advocates are worried about, the endless discussion of net neutrality causes real, actual, concrete harm to the people net neutrality advocates like to pat themselves on the back as advocating for. We should all be angry about this, and demanding that Congress put this debate out of our misery.

The US Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights recently held hearings to see what, if anything, the U.S. might learn from the approaches of other countries regarding antitrust and consumer protection. US lawmakers would do well to be wary of examples from other jurisdictions, however, that are rooted in different legal and cultural traditions. Shortly before the hearing, for example, Australia’s Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (ACCC) announced that it was exploring broad new regulations, predicated on theoretical harms, that would threaten both consumer welfare and individuals’ rights to free expression that are completely at odds with American norms.

The ACCC seeks vast discretion to shape the way that online platforms operate — a regulatory venture that threatens to undermine the value which companies provide to consumers. Even more troubling are its plans to regulate free expression on the Internet, which if implemented in the US, would contravene Americans’ First Amendment guarantees to free speech.

The ACCC’s errors are fundamental, starting with the contradictory assertion that:

Australian law does not prohibit a business from possessing significant market power or using its efficiencies or skills to “out compete” its rivals. But when their dominant position is at risk of creating competitive or consumer harm, governments should stay ahead of the game and act to protect consumers and businesses through regulation.

Thus, the ACCC recognizes that businesses may work to beat out their rivals and thus gain in market share. However, this is immediately followed by the caveat that the state may prevent such activity, when such market gains are merely “at risk” of coming at the expense of consumers or business rivals. Thus, the ACCC does not need to show that harm has been done, merely that it might take place — even if the products and services being provided otherwise benefit the public.

The ACCC report then uses this fundamental error as the basis for recommending content regulation of digital platforms like Facebook and Google (who have apparently been identified by Australia’s clairvoyant PreCrime Antitrust unit as being guilty of future violations). It argues that the lack of transparency and oversight in the algorithms these companies employ could result in a range of possible social and economic damages, despite the fact that consumers continue to rely on these products. These potential issues include prioritization of the content and products of the host company, under-serving of ads within their products, and creation of “filter bubbles” that conceal content from particular users thereby limiting their full range of choice.

The focus of these concerns is the kind and quality of  information that users are receiving as a result of the “media market” that results from the “ranking and display of news and journalistic content.” As a remedy for its hypothesised concerns, the ACCC has proposed a new regulatory authority tasked with overseeing the operation of the platforms’ algorithms. The ACCC claims this would ensure that search and newsfeed results are balanced and of high quality. This policy would undermine consumer welfare  in pursuit of remedying speculative harms.

Rather than the search results or news feeds being determined by the interaction between the algorithm and the user, the results would instead be altered to comply with criteria established by the ACCC. Yet, this would substantially undermine the value of these services.  The competitive differentiation between, say, Google and Bing lies in their unique, proprietary search algorithms. The ACCC’s intervention would necessarily remove some of this differentiation between online providers, notionally to improve the “quality” of results. But such second-guessing by regulators would quickly undermine the actual quality–and utility — of these services to users.

A second, but more troubling prospect is the threat of censorship that emerges from this kind of regime. Any agency granted a mandate to undertake such algorithmic oversight, and override or reconfigure the product of online services, thereby controls the content consumers may access. Such regulatory power thus affects not only what users can read, but what media outlets might be able to say in order to successfully offer curated content. This sort of control is deeply problematic since users are no longer merely faced with a potential “filter bubble” based on their own preferences interacting with a single provider, but with a pervasive set of speech controls promulgated by the government. The history of such state censorship is one which has demonstrated strong harms to both social welfare and rule of law, and should not be emulated.

Undoubtedly antitrust and consumer protection laws should be continually reviewed and revised. However, if we wish to uphold the principles upon which the US was founded and continue to protect consumer welfare, the US should avoid following the path Australia proposes to take.

A recent working paper by Hashmat Khan and Matthew Strathearn attempts to empirically link anticompetitive collusion to the boom and bust cycles of the economy.

The level of collusion is higher during a boom relative to a recession as collusion occurs more frequently when demand is increasing (entering into a collusive arrangement is more profitable and deviating from an existing cartel is less profitable). The model predicts that the number of discovered cartels and hence antitrust filings should be procyclical because the level of collusion is procyclical.

The first sentence—a hypothesis that collusion is more likely during a “boom” than in recession—seems reasonable. At the same time, a case can be made that collusion would be more likely during recession. For example, a reduced risk of entry from competitors would reduce the cost of collusion.

The second sentence, however, seems a stretch. Mainly because it doesn’t recognize the time delay between the collusive activity, the date the collusion is discovered by authorities, and the date the case is filed.

Perhaps, more importantly, it doesn’t acknowledge that many collusive arrangement span months, if not years. That span of time could include times of “boom” and times of recession. Thus, it can be argued that the date of the filing has little (or nothing) to do with the span over which the collusive activity occurred.

I did a very lazy man’s test of my criticisms. I looked at six of the filings cited by Khan and Strathearn for the year 2011, a “boom” year with a high number of horizontal price fixing cases filed.

khanstrathearn

My first suspicion was correct. In these six cases, an average of more than three years passed from the date of the last collusive activity and the date the case was filed. Thus, whether the economy is a boom or bust when the case is filed provides no useful information regarding the state of the economy when the collusion occurred.

Nevertheless, my lazy man’s small sample test provides some interesting—and I hope useful—information regarding Khan and Strathearn’s conclusions.

  1. From July 2001 through September 2009, 24 of the 99 months were in recession. In other words, during this period, there was a 24 percent chance the economy was in recession in any given month.
  2. Five of the six collusive arrangements began when the economy was in recovery. Only one began during a recession. This may seem to support their conclusion that collusive activity is more likely during a recovery. However, even if the arrangements began randomly, there would be a 55 percent chance that that five or more began during a recovery. So, you can’t read too much into the observation that most of the collusive agreements began during a “boom.”
  3. In two of the cases, the collusive activity occurred during a span of time that had no recession. The chances of this happening randomly is less than 1 in 20,000, supporting their conclusion regarding collusive activity and the business cycle.

Khan and Strathearn fall short in linking collusive activity to the business cycle but do a good job of linking antitrust enforcement activities to the business cycle. The information they use from the DOJ website is sufficient to determine when the collusive activity occurred—but it’ll take more vigorous “scrubbing” (their word) of the site to get the relevant data.

The bigger question, however, is the relevance of this research. Naturally, one could argue this line of research indicates that competition authorities should be extra vigilant during a booming economy. Yet, Adam Smith famously noted, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” This suggests that collusive activity—or the temptation to engage in such activity—is always and everywhere present, regardless of the business cycle.

 

Last week, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Thom Tillis, and Representative Bill Flores introduced the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018 (HWIA) in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  If enacted, the HWIA would help to ensure that the unbalanced inter partes review (IPR) process does not stifle innovation in the drug industry and jeopardize patients’ access to life-improving drugs.

Created under the America Invents Act of 2012, IPR is a new administrative pathway for challenging patents. It was, in large part, created to fix the problem of patent trolls in the IT industry; the trolls allegedly used questionable or “low quality” patents to extort profits from innovating companies.  IPR created an expedited pathway to challenge patents of dubious quality, thus making it easier for IT companies to invalidate low quality patents.

However, IPR is available for patents in any industry, not just the IT industry.  In the market for drugs, IPR offers an alternative to the litigation pathway that Congress created over three decades ago in the Hatch-Waxman Act. Although IPR seemingly fixed a problem that threatened innovation in the IT industry, it created a new problem that directly threatened innovation in the drug industry. I’ve previously published an article explaining why IPR jeopardizes drug innovation and consumers’ access to life-improving drugs. With Hatch-Waxman, Congress sought to achieve a delicate balance between stimulating innovation from brand drug companies, who hold patents, and facilitating market entry from generic drug companies, who challenge the patents.  However, IPR disrupts this balance as critical differences between IPR proceedings and Hatch-Waxman litigation clearly tilt the balance in the patent challengers’ favor. In fact, IPR has produced noticeably anti-patent results; patents are twice as likely to be found invalid in IPR challenges as they are in Hatch-Waxman litigation.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) applies a lower standard of proof for invalidity in IPR proceedings than do federal courts in Hatch-Waxman proceedings. In federal court, patents are presumed valid and challengers must prove each patent claim invalid by “clear and convincing evidence.” In IPR proceedings, no such presumption of validity applies and challengers must only prove patent claims invalid by the “preponderance of the evidence.”

Moreover, whereas patent challengers in district court must establish sufficient Article III standing, IPR proceedings do not have a standing requirement.  This has given rise to “reverse patent trolling,” in which entities that are not litigation targets, or even participants in the same industry, threaten to file an IPR petition challenging the validity of a patent unless the patent holder agrees to specific pre-filing settlement demands.  The lack of a standing requirement has also led to the  exploitation of the IPR process by entities that would never be granted standing in traditional patent litigation—hedge funds betting against a company by filing an IPR challenge in hopes of crashing the stock and profiting from the bet.

Finally, patent owners are often forced into duplicative litigation in both IPR proceedings and federal court litigation, leading to persistent uncertainty about the validity of their patents.  Many patent challengers that are unsuccessful in invalidating a patent in district court may pursue subsequent IPR proceedings challenging the same patent, essentially giving patent challengers “two bites at the apple.”  And if the challenger prevails in the IPR proceedings (which is easier to do given the lower standard of proof), the PTAB’s decision to invalidate a patent can often “undo” a prior district court decision.  Further, although both district court judgments and PTAB decisions are appealable to the Federal Circuit, the court applies a more deferential standard of review to PTAB decisions, increasing the likelihood that they will be upheld compared to the district court decision.

The pro-challenger bias in IPR creates significant uncertainty for patent rights in the drug industry.  As an example, just last week patent claims for drugs generating $6.5 billion for drug company Sanofi were invalidated in an IPR proceeding.  Uncertain patent rights will lead to less innovation because drug companies will not spend the billions of dollars it typically costs to bring a new drug to market when they cannot be certain if the patents for that drug can withstand IPR proceedings that are clearly stacked against them.   And, if IPR causes drug innovation to decline, a significant body of research predicts that patients’ health outcomes will suffer as a result.

The HWIA, which applies only to the drug industry, is designed to return the balance established by Hatch-Waxman between branded drug innovators and generic drug challengers. It eliminates challengers’ ability to file duplicative claims in both federal court and through the IPR process. Instead, they must choose between either Hatch-Waxman litigation (which saves considerable costs by allowing generics to rely on the brand company’s safety and efficacy studies for FDA approval) and IPR (which is faster and provides certain pro-challenger provisions). In addition to eliminating generic challengers’ “second bite of the apple,” the HWIA would also eliminate the ability of hedge funds and similar entities to file IPR claims while shorting the stock.

Thus, if enacted, the HWIA would create incentives that reestablish Hatch-Waxman litigation as the standard pathway for generic challenges to brand patents.  Yet, it would preserve IPR proceedings as an option when speed of resolution is a primary concern.  Ultimately, it will restore balance to the drug industry to safeguard competition, innovation, and patients’ access to life-improving drugs.

“Our City has become a cesspool,” according Portland police union president, Daryl Turner. He was describing efforts to address the city’s large and growing homelessness crisis.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler defended the city’s approach, noting that every major city, “all the way up and down the west coast, in the Midwest, on the East Coast, and frankly, in virtually every large city in the world” has a problem with homelessness. Nevertheless, according to the Seattle Times, Portland is ranked among the 10 worst major cities in the U.S. for homelessness. Wheeler acknowledged, “the problem is getting worse.”

This week, the city’s Budget Office released a “performance report” for some of the city’s bureaus. One of the more eyepopping statistics is the number of homeless camps the city has cleaned up over the years.

PortlandHomelessCampCleanups

Keep in mind, Multnomah County reports there are 4,177 homeless residents in the entire county. But the city reports clearing more than 3,100 camps in one year. Clearly, the number of homeless in the city is much larger than reflected in the annual homeless counts.

The report makes a special note that, “As the number of clean‐ups has increased and program operations have stabilized, the total cost per clean‐up has decreased substantially as well.” Sounds like economies of scale.

Turns out, Budget Office’s simple graphic gives enough information to estimate the economies of scale in homeless camp cleanups. Yes, it’s kinda crappy data. (Could it really be the case that in two years in a row, the city cleaned up exactly the same number of camps at exactly the same cost?) Anyway data is data.

First we plot the total annual costs for cleanups. Of course it’s an awesome fit (R-squared of 0.97), but that’s what happens when you have three observations and two independent variables.

PortlandHomelessTC

Now that we have an estimate of the total cost function, we can plot the marginal cost curve (blue) and average cost curve (orange).

PortlandHomelessMCAC1

That looks like a textbook example of economies of scale: decreasing average cost. It also looks like a textbook example of natural monopoly: marginal cost lower than average cost over the relevant range of output.

What strikes me as curious is how low is the implied marginal cost of a homeless camp cleanup, as shown in the table below.

FY Camps TC AC MC
2014-15 139 $171,109 $1,231 $3,178
2015-16 139 $171,109 $1,231 $3,178
2016-17 571 $578,994 $1,014 $774
2017-18 3,122 $1,576,610 $505 $142

It is somewhat shocking that the marginal cost of an additional camp cleanup is only $142. The hourly wages for the cleanup crew alone would be way more than $142. Something seems fishy with the numbers the city is reporting.

My guess: The city is shifting some of the cleanup costs to other agencies, such as Multnomah County and/or the Oregon Department of Transportation. I also suspect the city is not fully accounting for the costs of the cleanups. And, I am almost certain the city is significantly under reporting how many homeless are living on Portland streets.

This post was co-authored with Chelsea Boyd

The Food and Drug Administration has spoken, and its words have, once again, ruffled many feathers. Coinciding with the deadline for companies to lay out their plans to prevent youth access to e-cigarettes, the agency has announced new regulatory strategies that are sure to not only make it more difficult for young people to access e-cigarettes, but for adults who benefit from vaping to access them as well.

More surprising than the FDA’s paradoxical strategy of preventing teen smoking by banning not combustible cigarettes, but their distant cousins, e-cigarettes, is that the biggest support for establishing barriers to accessing e-cigarettes seems to come from the tobacco industry itself.

Going above and beyond the FDA’s proposals, both Altria and JUUL are self-restricting flavor sales, creating more — not fewer — barriers to purchasing their products. And both companies now publicly support a 21-to-purchase mandate. Unfortunately, these barriers extend beyond restricting underage access and will no doubt affect adult smokers seeking access to reduced-risk products.

To say there are no benefits to self-regulation by e-cigarette companies would be misguided. Perhaps the biggest benefit is to increase the credibility of these companies in an industry where it has historically been lacking. Proposals to decrease underage use of their product show that these companies are committed to improving the lives of smokers. Going above and beyond the FDA’s regulations also allows them to demonstrate that they take underage use seriously.

Yet regulation, whether imposed by the government or as part of a business plan, comes at a price. This is particularly true in the field of public health. In other health areas, the FDA is beginning to recognize that it needs to balance regulatory prudence with the risks of delaying innovation. For example, by decreasing red tape in medical product development, the FDA aims to help people access novel treatments for conditions that are notoriously difficult to treat. Unfortunately, this mindset has not expanded to smoking.

Good policy, whether imposed by government or voluntarily adopted by private actors, should not help one group while harming another. Perhaps the question that should be asked, then, is not whether these new FDA regulations and self-imposed restrictions will decrease underage use of e-cigarettes, but whether they decrease underage use enough to offset the harm caused by creating barriers to access for adult smokers.

The FDA’s new point-of-sale policy restricts sales of flavored products (not including tobacco flavors or menthol/mint flavors) to either specialty, age-restricted, in-person locations or to online retailers with heightened age-verification systems. JUUL, Reynolds and Altria have also included parts of this strategy in their proposed self-regulations, sometimes going even further by limiting sales of flavored products to their company websites.

To many people, these measures may not seem like a significant barrier to purchasing e-cigarettes, but in fact, online retail is a luxury that many cannot access. Heightened online age-verification processes are likely to require most of the following: a credit or debit card, a Social Security number, a government-issued ID, a cellphone to complete two-factor authorization, and a physical address that matches the user’s billing address. According to a 2017 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. survey, one in four U.S. households are unbanked or underbanked, which is an indicator of not having a debit or credit card. That factor alone excludes a quarter of the population, including many adults, from purchasing online. It’s also important to note that the demographic characteristics of people who lack the items required to make online purchases are also the characteristics most associated with smoking.

Additionally, it’s likely that these new point-of-sale restrictions won’t have much of an effect at all on the target demographic — those who are underage. According to a 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, of the 9 percent of high school students who currently use electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), only 13 percent reported purchasing the device for themselves from a store. This suggests that 87 percent of underage users won’t be deterred by prohibitive measures to move sales to specialty stores or online. Moreover, Reynolds estimates that only 20 percent of its VUSE sales happen online, indicating that more than three-quarters of users — consisting mainly of adults — purchase products in brick-and-mortar retail locations.

Existing enforcement techniques, if properly applied at the point of sale, could have a bigger impact on youth access. Interestingly, a recent analysis by Baker White of FDA inspection reports suggests that the agency’s existing approaches to prevent youth access may be lacking — meaning that there is much room for improvement. Overall, selling to minors is extremely low-risk for stores. The likelihood of a store receiving a fine for violation of the minimum age of sale is once for every 36.7 years of operation, the financial risk is about 2 cents per day, and the risk of receiving a no sales order (the most severe consequence) is 1 for every 2,825 years of operation. Furthermore, for every $279 the FDA receives in fines, it spends over $11,800. With odds like those, it’s no wonder some stores are willing to sell to minors: Their risk is minimal.

Eliminating access to flavored products is the other arm of the FDA’s restrictions. Many people have suggested that flavors are designed to appeal to youth, yet fewer talk about the proportion of adults who use flavored e-cigarettes. In reality, flavors are an important factor for adults who switch from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes. A 2018 survey of 20,676 US adults who frequently use e-cigarettes showed that “since 2013, fruit-flavored e-liquids have replaced tobacco-flavored e-liquids as the most popular flavors with which participants had initiated e-cigarette use.” By relegating flavored products to specialty retailers and online sales, the FDA has forced adult smokers, who may switch from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes, to go out of their way to initiate use.

It remains to be seen if new regulations, either self- or FDA-imposed, will decrease underage use. However, we already know who is most at risk for negative outcomes from these new regulations: people who are geographically disadvantaged (for instance, people who live far away from adult-only retailers), people who might not have credit to go through an online retailer, and people who rely on new flavors as an incentive to stay away from combustible cigarettes. It’s not surprising or ironic that these are also the people who are most at risk for using combustible cigarettes in the first place.

Given the likelihood that the new way of doing business will have minimal positive effects on youth use but negative effects on adult access, we must question what the benefits of these policies are. Fortunately, we know the answer already: The FDA gets political capital and regulatory clout; industry gets credibility; governments get more excise tax revenue from cigarette sales. And smokers get left behind.

A recent NBER working paper by Gutiérrez & Philippon has attracted attention from observers who see oligopoly everywhere and activists who want governments to more actively “manage” competition. The analysis in the paper is fundamentally flawed and should not be relied upon by policymakers, regulators, or anyone else.

As noted in my earlier post, Gutiérrez & Philippon attempt to craft a causal linkage between differences in U.S. and EU antitrust enforcement and product market regulation to differences in market concentration and corporate profits. Their paper’s abstract leads with a bold assertion:

Until the 1990’s, US markets were more competitive than European markets. Today, European markets have lower concentration, lower excess profits, and lower regulatory barriers to entry.

This post focuses on Gutiérrez & Philippon’s claim that EU markets have lower “excess profits.” This is perhaps the most outrageous claim in the paper. If anyone bothers to read the full paper, they’ll see that claims that EU firms have lower excess profits is simply not supported by the paper itself. Aside from a passing mention of someone else’s work in a footnote, the only mention of “excess profits” is in the paper’s headline-grabbing abstract.

What’s even more outrageous is the authors don’t define (or even describe) what they mean by excess profits.

These two factors alone should be enough to toss aside the paper’s assertion about “excess” profits. But, there’s more.

Gutiérrez & Philippon define profit to be gross operating surplus and mixed income (known as “GOPS” in the OECD’s STAN Industrial Analysis dataset). GOPS is not the same thing as gross margin or gross profit as used in business and finance (for example GOPS subtracts wages, but gross margin does not). The EU defines GOPS as (emphasis added):

Operating surplus is the surplus (or deficit) on production activities before account has been taken of the interest, rents or charges paid or received for the use of assets. Mixed income is the remuneration for the work carried out by the owner (or by members of his family) of an unincorporated enterprise. This is referred to as ‘mixed income’ since it cannot be distinguished from the entrepreneurial profit of the owner.

Here’s Figure 1 from Gutiérrez & Philippon plotting GOPS as a share of gross output.

Fig1-GutierrezPhilippon

Look at the huge jump in gross operating surplus for U.S. firms!

Now, look at the scale of the y-axis. Not such a big jump after all.

Over 23 years, from 1992 to 2015, the gross operating surplus rate for U.S. firms grew by 2.5 percentage points. In the EU, the rate increased by about one percentage point.

Using the STAN dataset, I plotted the gross operating surplus rate for each EU country (blue dots) and the U.S. (red dots), along with a time trend. Three takeaways:

  1. There’s not much of a difference between the U.S. and the EU average—they both hover around a gross operating surplus rate of about 19.5 percent; and
  2. There’s a huge variation in gross operating surplus rate across EU countries.
  3. Yes, gross operating surplus is trending slightly upward in the U.S. and slightly downward for the EU average, but there doesn’t appear to be a huge difference in the slope of the trendlines. In fact the slopes of the trendlines are not statistically significantly different from zero and are not statistically significantly different from each other.

GOPSprod

The use of gross profits raises some serious questions. For example, the Stigler Center’s James Traina finds that, after accounting for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), mark-ups for publicly traded firms in the U.S. have not meaningfully increased since 1980.

The figure below plots net operating surplus (NOPS equals GOPS minus consumption of fixed capital)—which is not the same thing as net income for a business.

Same three takeaways:

  1. There’s not much of a difference between the U.S. and the EU average—they both hover around a net operating surplus rate of a little more than seven percent; and
  2. There’s a huge variation in net operating surplus rate across EU countries.
  3. The slope of the trendlines for net operating surplus in the U.S. and EU are not statistically significantly different from zero and are not statistically significantly different from each other.

NOPSprod

It’s very possible that U.S. firms are achieving higher and growing “excess” profits relative to EU firms. It’s also very possible they’re not. Despite the bold assertions of Gutiérrez & Philippon, the information presented in their paper provides no useful information one way or the other.

 

A recent NBER working paper by Gutiérrez & Philippon attempts to link differences in U.S. and EU antitrust enforcement and product market regulation to differences in market concentration and corporate profits. The paper’s abstract begins with a bold assertion:

Until the 1990’s, US markets were more competitive than European markets. Today, European markets have lower concentration, lower excess profits, and lower regulatory barriers to entry.

The authors are not clear what they mean by lower, however its seems they mean lower today relative to the 1990s.

This blog post focuses on the first claim: “Today, European markets have lower concentration …”

At the risk of being pedantic, Gutiérrez & Philippon’s measures of market concentration for which both U.S. and EU data are reported cover the period from 1999 to 2012. Thus, “the 1990s” refers to 1999, and “today” refers to 2012, or six years ago.

The table below is based on Figure 26 in Gutiérrez & Philippon. In 2012, there appears to be no significant difference in market concentration between the U.S. and the EU, using either the 8-firm concentration ratio or HHI. Based on this information, it cannot be concluded broadly that EU sectors have lower concentration than the U.S.

2012U.S.EU
CR826% (+5%)27% (-7%)
HHI640 (+150)600 (-190)

Gutiérrez & Philippon focus on the change in market concentration to draw their conclusions. However, the levels of market concentration measures are strikingly low. In all but one of the industries (telecommunications) in Figure 27 of their paper, the 8-firm concentration ratios for the U.S. and the EU are below 40 percent. Similarly, the HHI measures reported in the paper are at levels that most observers would presume to be competitive. In addition, in 7 of the 12 sectors surveyed, the U.S. 8-firm concentration ratio is lower than in the EU.

The numbers in parentheses in the table above show the change in the measures of concentration since 1999. The changes suggests that U.S. markets have become more concentrated and EU markets have become less concentrated. But, how significant are the changes in concentration?

A simple regression of the relationship between CR8 and a time trend finds that in the EU, CR8 has decreased an average of 0.5 percentage point a year, while the U.S. CR8 increased by less than 0.4 percentage point a year from 1999 to 2012. Tucked in an appendix to Gutiérrez & Philippon, Figure 30 shows that CR8 in the U.S. had decreased by about 2.5 percentage points from 2012 to 2014.

A closer examination of Gutiérrez & Philippon’s 8-firm concentration ratio for the EU shows that much of the decline in EU market concentration occurred over the 1999-2002 period. After that, the change in CR8 for the EU is not statistically significantly different from zero.

A regression of the relationship between HHI and a time trend finds that in the EU, HHI has decreased an average of 12.5 points a year, while the U.S. HHI increased by less than 16.4 points a year from 1999 to 2012.

As with CR8, a closer examination of Gutiérrez & Philippon’s HHI for the EU shows that much of the decline in EU market concentration occurred over the 1999-2002 period. After that, the change in HHI for the EU is not statistically significantly different from zero.

Readers should be cautious in relying on Gutiérrez & Philippon’s data to conclude that the U.S. is “drifting” toward greater market concentration while the EU is “drifting” toward lower market concentration. Indeed, the limited data presented in the paper point toward a convergence in market concentration between the two regions.

 

 

An important but unheralded announcement was made on October 10, 2018: The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) released a draft CEN CENELAC Workshop Agreement (CWA) on the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for 5G/Internet of Things (IoT) applications. The final agreement, due to be published in early 2019, is likely to have significant implications for the development and roll-out of both 5G and IoT applications.

CEN and CENELAC, which along with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) are the officially recognized standard setting bodies in Europe, are private international non profit organizations with a widespread network consisting of technical experts from industry, public administrations, associations, academia and societal organizations. This first Workshop brought together representatives of the 5G/Internet of Things (IoT) technology user and provider communities to discuss licensing best practices and recommendations for a code of conduct for licensing of SEPs. The aim was to produce a CWA that reflects and balances the needs of both communities.

The final consensus outcome of the Workshop will be published as a CEN-CENELEC Workshop Agreement (CWA). The draft, which is available for public comments, comprises principles and guidelines that prepare a foundation for future licensing of standard essential patents for fifth generation (5G) technologies. The draft also contains a section on Q&A to help aid new implementers and patent holders.

The IoT ecosystem is likely to have over 20 billion interconnected devices by 2020 and represent a market of $17 trillion (about the same as the current GDP of the U.S.). The data collected by one device, such as a smart thermostat that learns what time the consumer is likely to be at home, can be used to increase the performance of another connected device, such as a smart fridge. Cellular technologies are a core component of the IoT ecosystem, alongside applications, devices, software etc., as they provide connectivity within the IoT system. 5G technology, in particular, is expected to play a key role in complex IoT deployments, which will transcend the usage of cellular networks from smart phones to smart home appliances, autonomous vehicles, health care facilities etc. in what has been aptly described as the fourth industrial revolution.

Indeed, the role of 5G to IoT is so significant that the proposed $117 billion takeover bid for U.S. tech giant Qualcomm by Singapore-based Broadcom was blocked by President Trump, citing national security concerns. (A letter sent by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US suggested that Broadcom might starve Qualcomm of investment, preventing it from competing effectively against foreign competitors–implicitly those in China.)

While commercial roll-out of 5G technology has not yet fully begun, several efforts are being made by innovator companies, standard setting bodies and governments to maximize the benefits from such deployment.

The draft CWA Guidelines (hereinafter “the guidelines”) are consistent with some of the recent jurisprudence on SEPs on various issues. While there is relatively less guidance specifically in relation to 5G SEPs, it provides clarifications on several aspects of SEP licensing which will be useful, particularly, the negotiating process and conduct of both parties.

The guidelines contain 6 principles followed by some questions pertaining to SEP licensing. The principles deal with:

  1. The obligation of SEP holders to license the SEPs on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms;
  2. The obligation on both parties to conduct negotiations in good faith;
  3. The obligation of both parties to provide necessary information (subject to confidentiality) to facilitate timely conclusion of the licensing negotiation;
  4. Compensation that is “fair and reasonable” and achieves the right balance between incentives to contribute technology and the cost of accessing that technology;
  5. A non-discriminatory obligation on the SEP holder for similarly situated licensees even though they don’t need to be identical; and
  6. Recourse to a third party FRAND determination either by court or arbitration if the negotiations fail to conclude in a timely manner.

There are 22 questions and answers, as well, which define basic terms and touch on issues such as: what amounts as good faith conduct of negotiating parties, global portfolio licensing, FRAND royalty rates, patent pooling, dispute resolution, injunctions, and other issues relevant to FRAND licensing policy in general.

Below are some significant contributions that the draft report makes on issues such as the supply chain level at which licensing is best done, treatment of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), non disclosure agreements, good faith negotiations and alternative dispute resolution.

Typically in the IoT ecosystem, many technologies will be adopted of which several will be standardized. The guidelines offer help to product and service developers in this regard and suggest that one may need to obtain licenses from SEP owners for product or services incorporating communications technology like 3G UMTS, 4G LTE, Wi-Fi, NB-IoT, 31 Cat-M or video codecs such as H.264. The guidelines, however, clarify that with the deployment of IoT, licenses for several other standards may be needed and developers should be mindful of these complexities when starting out in order to avoid potential infringements.

Notably, the guidelines suggest that in order to simplify licensing, reduce costs for all parties and maintain a level playing field between licensees, SEP holders should license at one level. While this may vary between different industries, for communications technology, the licensing point is often at the end-user equipment level. There has been a fair bit of debate on this issue and the recent order by Judge Koh granting FTC’s partial summary motion deals with some of this.

In the judgment delivered on November 6, Judge Koh relied primarily on the 9th circuit decisions in Microsoft v Motorola (2012 and 2015)  to rule on the core issue of the scope of the FRAND commitments–specifically on the question of whether licensing extends to all levels or is confined to the end device level. The court interpreted the pro- competitive principles behind the non-discrimination requirement to mean that such commitments are “sweeping” and essentially that an SEP holder has to license to anyone willing to offer a FRAND rate globally. It also cited Ericsson v D-Link, where the Federal Circuit held that “compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard and so practice of the standard is impossible without licenses to all incorporated SEP technology.”

The guidelines speak about the importance of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in such licensing agreements given that some of the information exchanged between parties during negotiation, such as claim charts etc., may be sensitive and confidential. Therefore, an undue delay in agreeing to an NDA, without well-founded reasons, might be taken as evidence of a lack of good faith in negotiations rendering such a licensee as unwilling.

They also provide quite a boost for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in licensing negotiations by addressing the duty of SEP owners to be mindful of SMEs that may be less experienced and therefore lack information from which to draw assurance that proposed terms are FRAND. The guidelines provide that SEP owners should provide whatever information they can under NDA to help the negotiation process. Equally, the same obligation applies on a licensee who is more experienced in dealing with a SEP owner who is an SME.

There is some clarity on time frames for negotiations and the guidelines provide a maximum time that parties should take to respond to offers and counter offers, which could extend up to several months in complex cases involving hundreds of patents. The guidelines also prescribe conduct of potential licensees on receiving an offer and how to make counter-offers in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the guidelines lay down the various ways in which royalty rates may be structured and clarify that there is no one fixed way in which this may be done. Similarly, they offer myriad ways in which potential licensees may be able to determine for themselves if the rates offered to them are fair and reasonable, such as third party patent landscape reports, public announcements, expert advice etc.

Finally, in the case that a negotiation reaches an impasse, the guidelines endorse an alternative dispute mechanism such as mediation or arbitration for the parties to resolve the issue. Bodies such as International Chamber of Commerce and World Intellectual Property Organization may provide useful platforms in this regard.

Almost 20 years have passed since technology pioneer Kevin Ashton first coined the phrase Internet of Things. While companies are gearing up to participate in the market of IoT, regulation and policy in the IoT world seems far from a predictable framework to follow. There are a lot of guesses about how rules and standards are likely to shape up, with little or no guidance for companies on how to prepare themselves for what faces them very soon. Therefore concrete efforts such as these are rather welcome. The draft guidelines do attempt to offer some much needed clarity and are now open for public comments due by December 13. It will be good to see what the final CWA report on licensing of SEPs for 5G and IoT looks like.