I dashed off a piece for CNET today on the Copyright Office’s cell phone “jailbreaking” rulemaking earlier this week.  Though there has already been extensive coverage (including solid pieces in The Washington Post, a New York Times editorial, CNET, and Techdirt), there were a few interesting aspects to the decision I thought were worth highlighting. [...]

The White House and the Federal Communications Commission have painted themselves into a very tight and very dangerous corner on Net Neutrality.  To date, a bi-partisan majority of Congress, labor leaders, consumer groups and, increasingly, some of the initial advocates of open Internet rules are all shouting that the agency has gone off the rails [...]

If I ever had any hope of “keeping up” with developments in the regulation of information technology—or even the nine specific areas I explored in The Laws of Disruption—that hope was lost long ago.  The last few months I haven’t even been able to keep up just sorting the piles of printouts of stories I’ve [...]

Better late than never, I’ve finally given a close read to the Notice of Inquiry issued by the FCC on June 17th.  (See my earlier comments, “FCC Votes for Reclassification, Dog Bites Man”.)  In some sense there was no surprise to the contents; the Commission’s legal counsel and Chairman Julius Genachowski had both published comments [...]

“Reading the Bilski Tea Leaves for What the Supreme Court Thinks of Software Patents”, Techdirt, July 2, 2010. Techdirt quotes extensively from Larry’s blog on the Bilski decision. The question now is how the Supreme Court would respond to a more direct challenge to the patentability of software inventions, especially given the curious behavior of [...]

“Court Punts on Patent Case”, Reason Magazine, June 29, 2010. Larry’s articles on the Bilski case formed the basis for this analysis from Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman.

“Supreme Court hedges on business method patents”, CNET News.com, June 28, 2010. Larry covered the Bilski decision for CNET, writing this much-reprinted article within hours of the decision.

“The Economic Argument for Why Court’s Viacom Ruling Makes Sense”, Techdirt, June 28, 2010. Mike Masnick has some kind words about Larry’s economic analysis of the Viacom v. YouTube case, which generated some interesting reader responses.

“Patently Important”, Barron’s, June 19, 2010. (subscription required) Mark Veverka reviews the arguments in the Bilski case ahead of the Court’s decision, quoting extensively from Larry’s previous articles.