Private Lawdrafting, Intellectual Property, and Public Laws
Public lawmakers have inadequate and misaligned incentives to engage in legal innovation. Private lawmaking is offered as a potential solution to this problem. However, private lawmaking faces a dilemma: In order to be effective, the cost-reducing standard forms produced by private lawdrafters need to be publicly enacted. However, enactment as law eliminates the intellectual property rights that are essential to properly motivate the private lawdrafters to produce such forms. As a result, private lawdrafters will have inadequate and misaligned incentives to engage in legal innovation that would provide widespread benefits. Absent some mechanism to allow the private lawdrafter a way to appropriate the gains from his investment in cost reducing legal innovation, the promise of private lawmaking may be minimal.
An Economic Analysis of Uniform State Laws
Uniform laws proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) cover virtually every area of state law. Yet there is no economic analysis of the NCCUSL's activities. This article addresses this gap in the literature by applying economic analysis to evaluate and explain the NCCUSL's activities and their success in state legislatures. We find that states efficiently sort between NCCUSL proposals in that they tend to adopt these proposals in which a cost-benefit analysis suggests that uniformity is efficient. Nevertheless, the NCCUSL promulgates many laws in which uniformity is not efficient, and the NCCUSL's influence causes some of these proposals to be adopted. Our results suggest that, in many cases, reliance on federal law or on centralized lawmaking bodies such as the NCCUSL to produce uniformity may be both unnecessary and perverse.
State Regulation of Electronic Commerce
There is a widespread belief that regulation of electronic commerce by individual states is unworkable because firms doing global business on the Internet easily can evade state regulation or, conversely, because firms are subject to excessive regulation due to states' overlapping jurisdiction. Instead, it is believed that electronic commerce is best regulated at the federal or even global level, and that any state regulation should be pursuant to uniform laws. This article challenges this conventional wisdom. It shows that regulation of electronic commerce by individual states has several advantages over federal or uniform state laws and that the problems of state regulation have been exaggerated. First, state regulation provides variety, evolution and competition that is especially well suited to the dynamic nature of electronic commerce. Second, courts can minimize jurisdictional overlaps by enforcing choice-of-law and choice-of-forum contracts. Third, markets alleviate concerns that enforcing contractual choice would lead to a "race-to-the-bottom" in state Internet regulation. Any remaining problems with state regulation should be analyzed in comparison with those that would result under federal or uniform state law.