Few people have been more tireless in their defense of the notion of “permissionless innovation” than Wall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz. In his weekly “Information Age” column for the Journal (which appears each Monday), Crovitz has consistently sounded the alarm regarding new threats to Internet freedom, technological freedom, and individual liberties. It was, therefore, a great honor for me to wake up Monday morning and read his latest post, “The End of the Permissionless Web,” which discussed my new book “Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom.”

“The first generation of the Internet did not go well for regulators,” Crovitz begins his column. “Despite early proposals to register websites and require government approval for business practices, the Internet in the U.S. developed largely without bureaucratic control and became an unstoppable engine of innovation and economic growth.” Unfortunately, he correctly notes:

Regulators don’t plan to make the same mistake with the next generation of innovations. Bureaucrats and prosecutors are moving in to undermine services that use the Internet in new ways to offer everything from getting a taxi to using self-driving cars to finding a place to stay.

This is exactly why I penned my little manifesto. As Crovitz continues on to note in his essay, new regulatory threats to both existing and emerging technologies are popping up on almost a daily basis. He highlights currently battles over Uber, Airbnb, 23andme, commercial drones, and more. And his previous columns have discussed many other efforts to “permission” innovation and force heavy-handed top-down regulatory schemes on fast-paced and rapidly-evolving sectors and technologies. As he argues:

The hardest thing for government regulators to do is to regulate less, which is why the development of the open-innovation Internet was a rare achievement. The regulation the digital economy needs most now is for permissionless innovation to become the default law of the land, not the exception.

Amen, brother! What we need to do is find more constructive ways to deal with some of the fears that motivate calls for regulation. But, as I noted in my little book,  how we address these concerns matters greatly. If and when problems develop, there are many less burdensome ways to address them than through preemptive technological controls. The best solutions to complex social problems are almost always organic and “bottom-up” in nature. Luckily, there exists a wide variety of constructive approaches that can be tapped to address or alleviate concerns associated with new innovations. I get very specific about those approaches in Chapter 5 of my book, which is entitled, “Preserving Permissionless Innovation: Principles of Progress.”

So, I hope you’ll download a free copy of the book and take a look. And my sincerest thanks to Gordon Crovitz for featuring it in his excellent new column.

Additional Reading:

• I summarized the major themes and conclusions of my book in this Medium essay, “Why Permissionless Innovation Matters” (4/24/14).
• A short essay I penned for the R Street Blog, “Bucking the ‘Mother, May I?’ Mentality.”
• I discussed my book on the “New Books in Technology” podcast (4/4/14).
• Konstantinos Komaitis discusses my book in his essay, “Permissionless Innovation: Why It Matters” (4/24/14).

Gordon Crovitz has an excellent column in today’s Wall Street Journal in which he accurately diagnoses the root cause of our patent litigation problem: the Federal Circuit’s support for extensive patenting in software.

Today’s patent mess can be traced to a miscalculation by Jimmy Carter, who thought granting more patents would help overcome economic stagnation. In 1979, his Domestic Policy Review on Industrial Innovation proposed a new Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which Congress created in 1982. Its first judge explained: “The court was formed for one need, to recover the value of the patent system as an incentive to industry.” The country got more patents—at what has turned out to be a huge cost. The number of patents has quadrupled, to more than 275,000 a year. But the Federal Circuit approved patents for software, which now account for most of the patents granted in the U.S.—and for most of the litigation. Patent trolls buy up vague software patents and demand legal settlements from technology companies. Instead of encouraging innovation, patent law has become a burden on entrepreneurs, especially startups without teams of patent lawyers.

I was pleased that Crovitz cites my new paper with Alex Tabarrok:

A system of property rights is flawed if no one can know what’s protected. That’s what happens when the government grants 20-year patents for vague software ideas in exchange for making the innovation public. In a recent academic paper, George Mason researchers Eli Dourado and Alex Tabarrok argued that the system of “broad and fuzzy” software patents “reduces the potency of search and defeats one of the key arguments for patents, the dissemination of information about innovation.”

Current legislation in Congress makes changes to patent trial procedure in an effort to reduce the harm caused by patent trolling. But if we really want to solve the trolling problem once and for all, and to generally have a healthy and innovative patent system, we need to get at the problem of low-quality patents, especially in software. The best way to do that is to abolish the Federal Circuit, which has consistently undermined limits on patentable subject matter.

While preparing my latest Forbes column, “Does the Internet Need a Global Regulator?” I collected some excellent resources. I figured I would just post all the links here since others might find them useful as we work our way up to the big U.N. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai this December. Please let me know of other things that I should add to this resource database. I’ve divided the database into “General Resources” and “Opinion Pieces”:

General Resources:

• World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) official website
• White House statement on WCIT: “Ensuring an Open Internet,” by Lawrence Strickling, Philip Verveer, and Daniel Weitzner, May 2, 2012.
• Internet Society “What is the WCIT?” F.A.Q.
• Internet Society’s Scoop.It page curating news on WCIT
• Center for Democracy & Technology briefing paper by : “ITU Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet,” March 12, 2012.
• David A. Gross & Ethan Lucarelli, “The 2012 World Conference On International Telecommunications: Another Brewing Storm Over Potential UN Regulation Of The Internet,” November 2011.
• Michael Joseph Gross, “World War 3.0,” Vanity Fair, May 2012.
• [BOOK] Milton Mueller – Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance (2010).
• Internet Governance Project blog.
• [RADIO] National Public Radio: “Who — If Anyone — Should Control The Internet?” January 12, 2012.

Opinion Pieces:

• Robert McDowell, “The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom” Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2012.
• ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré, “Securing the Future Benefits of Technology,” The Guardian (U.K.), March 6, 2012. [+ a recent speech on the issue.]
• Andrea Renda, “The U.N., Internet Regulator?” Wall Street Journal Europe, April 25, 2012.
• Gordon Crovitz, “The U.N. Wants to Run the Internet,” Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2012
• Adam Thierer, “Does the Internet Need a Global Regulator?” Forbes, May 6, 2012
• Gregory Francis, “UN Moves on Internet Governance: Latest Dispatch,” CircleID, April 26, 2012.
• Aspen Institute, Toward a Single Global Digital Economy: The First Report of the Aspen Institute IDEA Project, (April 24, 2012).
• Edward J. Black, “UN’s ITU Could Become Next Internet Freedom Threat,” Huffington Post, March 9, 2012.
• Jerry Brito, “The Case Against Letting the U.N. Govern the Internet,” Time TechLand, February 13, 2012.
• Tom Tauke, Verizon, Speech at New Democrat Network Internet Governance Event, April 19, 2012
• former Rep. Rick Boucher “U.N. Efforts Put Internet Freedom at Risk,” Politico, May 3, 2012.

I’ve noted here before that Gordon Crovitz is my favorite technology policy columnist and that everything he pens for his “Information Age” column for The Wall Street Journal is well worth reading.   His latest might be his best ever.  It touches upon the great debate between Internet optimists and pessimists regarding the impact of digital technology on our culture and economy.  His title is just perfect: “Is Technology Good or Bad? Yes.”  His point is that you can find evidence that technological change has both beneficial and detrimental impacts, and plenty of people on both sides of the debate to cite it for you.

He specifically references the leading pessimist, Nicholas Carr, and optimist, Clay Shirky, of our time. In The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains and The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google, Carr paints a dismal portrait of what the Internet is doing us and the world around us. Clay Shirky responds in books like Here Comes Everybody and Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in the a Connected Age, arguing that we are much better off because of the rise of the Net and digital technology.

This is a subject I’ve spent a lot of time noodling over here through the years and, most recently, I compiled all my random thoughts into a mega-post asking, “ Are You an Internet Optimist or Pessimist?”  That post tracks all the leading texts on both sides of this debate.  I was tickled, therefore, when Gordon contacted me and asked for comment for his story after seeing my piece. [See, people really do still read blogs!]  I told Gordon that I label my own position “pragmatic optimism,” which I summarized as follows: “The Internet and digital technologies are reshaping our culture, economy and society in most ways for the better, but not without some serious heartburn along the way.”  My bottom line comes down to a simple cost-benefit analysis: “Were we really better off in the scarcity era when we were collectively suffering from information poverty? I’ll take information overload over information poverty any day.”

Moreover, practically speaking, I don’t see any realistic way to roll back the clock to some supposed “good ‘ol days”–whenever those were.  As Gordon argues, “Whatever the mix of good and bad, technology only advances and cannot be put back in the bottle.”  Exactly right.  Thus, we need to learn to assimilate new technologies into our lives, culture, and economy.  Luckily, adaptation is something that we humans are very good at. Past experience tells us that we got through previous gut-wrenching technological / social revolutions; we can get through this one, too.  But, again, there will be rough patches and legitimate issues that need to be addressed as we make this journey.

So, make sure to check out Gordon’s article. It’s a terrifically interesting topic, and one that I still hope to turn into a book as I noted here before.

P.S. Here are a couple of other interesting essays on this topic that that have been released recently:

• Andrew McAfee’s terrific essay “I Know I’m Not the Only Internet Optimist…” from his blog
• Michiko Kakutani essay in the New York Times, “Texts Without Contexts”
• Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal argues that “Information Overload is Nothing New“
• a great PBS documentary about these issues: “Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier” (+ my thoughts on the film)
• a video from a Family Online Safety Institute event about the PBS documentary that features a discussion about Internet optimism vs. pessimism

The always-excellent Wall Street Journal “Information Age” columnist L. Gordon Crovitz has another editorial worth reading today, which builds on the Second Circuit’s recent decision to reverse FCC content regulation for broadcasting.  In “The Technology of Decency,” Crovitz explains “parents don’t need the FCC to protect their children.” “Technology makes it easier to block seven or any number of dirty words,” he notes. “Taking the FCC out of regulating indecency might just lead to more decency by refocusing responsibility where it belongs: on broadcasters and parents.”

That’s a point I’ve hammered on her in the past and in all my work on parental empowerment solutions, including my book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” Indeed, there has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what is acceptable in their homes and in the lives of their children.  And, luckily, poll after poll shows that parents are stepping up to the plate and taking on that responsibility (contrary to what some policymakers in Washington imply).

Moreover, legally speaking, Crovitz shows why the old rationales for regulating broadcasting differently no longer work. “No medium is likely ever to be as pervasive as broadcasting once was,” he notes. He goes on to note that:

Broadcasting is no longer the pervasive, dominant medium. And unlike the Web, televisions now have tools for parents to block programs based on their suitability for kids. And the appeal court’s history of technology undermines the legal foundation for allowing broadcast censorship, including the justification that broadcast outlets are scarce. There are now more television stations than newspapers.

Indeed, that’s a point I have stressed in my work, especially my Catholic University CommLaw Conspectus law review article, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age.”  I also produced this video on “America’s First Amendment Twilight Zone” to better explain why the old notions of “scarcity” and “pervasiveness” no longer work as rationales for asymmetrical regulation of speech.  Anyway, make sure to read Crovitz’s excellent essay.

Another great column by the Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Crovitz, who is quickly becoming my favorite tech policy columnist. In today’s column, “Bloggers Mugged by Regulators,” he comments on the FTC’s new disclosure rules for bloggers, which I discussed here over the weekend.  Crovitz focuses on the enforcement challenges associated with the new rules and also argues that self-regulation should be given a chance to work:

There should be more disclosure, but the Web is different from earlier media in ways that make government regulation less relevant and practical. The Web has its own self-regulatory mechanisms. Failing to disclose interests sullies one’s reputation online, and reputation harm travels faster and lasts longer than it did before the Web. There’s also greater need for caveat emptor online, because there is no practical way that any government agency can monitor the world’s bloggers and posters. There will always be people who post comments about products and services that are self-serving in one way or another, at least by someone’s definition. […] Instead of trying to extend analog-era regulations onto the Web, the FTC should encourage readers to be vigilant about assessing for themselves the independence of sources online. At least we now know the biggest fraudulent claim so far on the Web: It’s been committed by regulators claiming there can be a government stamp of approval on everything anyone posts anywhere on the Web.

Amen brother.

I cannot in strong enough terms recommend that everyone read Gordon Crovitz’s latest Wall Street Journal column, “Free Speech, Now that Speech is Free.”  It perfectly encapsulates everything we stand for here and makes the case that I have made again and again: Speech regulation — of all flavors — makes less and less sense in a world of information abundance and user empowerment, and it is a complete affront to our First Amendment rights.  As Crovitz argues:

The Constitution was drafted at a time when there were few media outlets, and few people could be heard. Since then, technology has made it possible for everyone to express their views. The cost of expressing opinions continues to fall. Now that speech is no longer expensive, it’s time to return to the Founders’ intention that speech be free and that Congress not abridge anyone’s right to speak.

Amen brother!  In his essay today, Crovitz specifically takes on America’s increasingly insane campaign finance laws, which make a mockery of the First Amendment.  In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court arguments in the Citizens United case, Crovitz points out the insulting stupidity and sheer futility of these analog era, scarcity-oriented laws:

In the era of YouTube and Facebook, the notion that anyone or any institution can dominate political debate is quaint at best. After last week’s Supreme Court argument, key parts of McCain-Feingold seem likely to be overturned. The justices are legal experts, not technologists, but in protecting constitutional rights, they know they are operating in a very different information environment than existed earlier in the decade. Lively political debate is supposed to benefit everyone—with the occasional exception of incumbent officeholders who are not re-elected. But McCain-Feingold banned the broadcast or transmission by cable or satellite of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before the general election. This always raised a First Amendment issue. The issue now goes deeper: How can any regulation based on an assumption of information scarcity be justified in an era of information abundance?

Absolutely, 100% right.  As I pointed out in my old City Journal essay, “The Media Cornucopia“:

Throughout most of history, humans lived in a state of extreme information poverty. News traveled slowly, field to field, village to village. Even with the printing press’s advent, information spread at a snail’s pace. Few knew how to find printed materials, assuming that they even knew how to read. Today, by contrast, we live in a world of unprecedented media abundance that once would have been the stuff of science-fiction novels. We can increasingly obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the bewildering variety of material available on the Internet.

And yet, despite these wonderful developments, we still have Washington policymakers and regulators conditioning speech rights on the supposed “scarcity” of viewpoints or soapboxes to stand on.  What utter rubbish.  Of course, that hasn’t stopped many regulatory activist groups from continuing to use such logic in favor of expanded media regulation.

Regardless, Crovitz suggests that, with any luck, we could get a replay of what happened to the Fairness Doctrine:

The likely demise of McCain-Feingold echoes the fate of the Fairness Doctrine. The Federal Communications Commission in 1949 required holders of broadcast licenses to present all sides of controversial topics. There were few broadcast outlets and at least arguably a risk of one-sided debates. The rule was abolished in 1987 as channels grew. With hundreds of cable channels and endless uploads of videos to the Web, it would be impossible to enforce “fairness” even if bureaucrats could track how much of which views were being expressed.

We can only hope that the course of human events follows that same trajectory and policymakers come around to once again realizing the error of their past ways.

In April 2008, L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, launched his “Information Age” column with a brilliant piece entitled “Optimism and the Digital World” (which Adam lauded here). Crovitz noted the problem of “information overload,” then creeping into the public consciousness, but was unabashed in his optimism:

My own bias is that as information becomes more accessible, individuals gain choice, control and freedom. Established institutions – governments, large companies and special-interest groups – need to work harder to justify their authority. As information and knowledge spread, financial and human capital become more global and more competitive. The uncertainties and dislocations from new technology can be wrenching, but genies don’t go back into bottles. The First Law of Technology says that “with every change in technology that affects consumer behavior, we always overestimate the impact in the short term, but then underestimate the full impact over the long term.”

Crovitz picks up where he left off in today’s column: “Information Overload? Relax:  We survived copy machines. We’ll survive Twitter.”

Our era in the information age is a transition period of learning how to navigate information abundance. Rather than pitch our BlackBerrys and iPhones into the sea, imagine the benefits once we have figured out how to manage the chaos of endless data and routine multitasking, a process that will help refine our judgment about information and refocus our attention on what’s truly important…. Humans adapt, so we’ll learn how to live with information overabundance. Young people growing up multitasking are already less anxious about using technology and may well cope better than those of us in older generations. They have no choice but to get more sophisticated at separating the important from the unimportant and the authoritative from the unreliable, even while sampling from among many new kinds of information tools… Young people will cope first as we all evolve to become more sophisticated, less anxious users of information.

Crovitz also notes, with approval, GMU economist Tyler Cowen’s new book, “Create Your Own Economy,” which Cord blogged about here. I recently heard Cowen talk about the book and thoroughly enjoyed the talk.