Posts Tagged ‘ Law ’

Innovation and Legislation: The Changing Relationship – Evidence from 1984 to 2015

disruptive-supply-chain-technology-sm

Wulf A. Kaal

University of St. Thomas, Minnesota – School of Law

Nick Farris

University of St. Thomas – School of Law (Minnesota)

Date Written: November 29, 2017

Abstract

We examine the relationship between innovation as measured by annual utility patents granted and two datasets for legislation: (1) the U.S. Code and (2) the Code of Federal Regulations from 1984 to 2015. We show that the historical relationship between innovation and legislation has changed, especially for computer and communication patents. The evidence suggests that the existing regulatory infrastructure has a diminishing capacity to react to innovation. The evolving empirical relationship between innovation and legislation has implications for the legal system and rulemaking processes in the existing regulatory framework.

Keywords: Innovation, Measures of Innovation, Legislation, Measures of Legislation, CFR, U.S. Code, Patents, Data, Matching

JEL Classification: K20, K23, K32, L43, L5, O31, O32

Kaal , Wulf A. and Farris, Nick, Innovation and Legislation: The Changing Relationship – Evidence from 1984 to 2015 (November 29, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=
Advertisements

January 6, 2013: Paper Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools

Link to the paper: Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition.

Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Australia Bank

Wulf A. Kaal

University of St. Thomas, Minnesota – School of Law

Richard W. Painter

University of Minnesota Law School

2012

Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 97, 2012
U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-12
Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-16

Abstract: 
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 held that U.S. securities laws apply only to securities transactions within the United States.

The transactional test in Morrison could be relatively short lived because it is rooted in geography. For cases involving private securities transactions in which geographic determinants of a transaction and thus applicable law are unclear, this article suggests redirecting the inquiry away from the geographic location of securities transactions towards the parties’ choice of law. In the long run, allowing parties to choose the law pertaining to private transactions could be more effective than relying on geography that is both indeterminate and easy to manipulate. Jurisdictions could then compete to induce transacting parties to bring private transactions within their jurisdictional reach by designing substantive law and procedures that parties choose ex-ante (“Choice of Law Competition”).

Recent cases expanding the jurisdictional reach of Dutch courts suggest that the Netherlands or another EU member state could engage in a different type of jurisdictional competition. Jurisdictions performing this role adjust their procedural rules to set up a forum within their borders for litigation that appeals to plaintiffs and their lawyers (“Forum Competition”). The U.S. engaged in some Forum Competition for extraterritorial securities litigation prior to Morrison, and the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 empowers the SEC to continue to bring suits in the United States over securities transactions outside the United States. For many issuers and investors who do not choose the forum ex-ante, Forum Competition can be suboptimal. Depending on future developments, the acceptable outer bounds of Forum Competition between the United States and Europe may need to be defined by treaty or multilateral agreement.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 74

Keywords: securities, securities law, securities regulation, securities and jurisdiction, securities and choice of law

Accepted Paper Series

%d bloggers like this: