prior probability

Probably not. The full story is here, via Zach Schonbrun of The N.Y. Times.

Updated Nov. 15: Last weekend, we attended the 2017 meeting of the Southeastern Academy of Legal Studies in Business (SEALSB) at the renowned Georgian Terrace Hotel in Atlanta, where we presented our Bayesian defense of the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale. (Here is a draft of the paper presented.) In addition, we learned a lot from our friends and colleagues at conference. Among our favorite talks were David Orozco‘s paper on university licensing agreements, Haskell Murray‘s work on morality clauses in athlete and celebrity contracts, Matthew Phillips‘s talk on “The Magic Municipality” (discussing Disney World’s exemptions from various State laws), Larry Trautman‘s talk on Google’s legal risks, Deepa Varadarajan‘s presentatation on “The Uses of IP Misuse”, and Ramsi Woodcock‘s talk on “Antitrust as Corporate Governance,” just to name a few. We will blog about some of these talks in future posts.

Also, check out this essay by Scott Stewart, via Stratfor: “Mexico’s cartels will continue to splinter in 2017.”

Hat tip: zdamaneta, via Reddit

Apple pays only 1% to 7% tax on overseas income, via “the Paradise Papers” and Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany’s biggest newspaper). File Under: Another example of bogus “corporate social responsibility.” Alternative file under: Another example of why Milton Friedman was right: firms exist to maximize their profits.

More at The Joy of Tax Law, via WordPress.

Read the full disturbing story (“Something Is Wrong on the Internet”) by James Bridle here (hat tip: digg.com). From a tort law perspective, could YouTube (Google/Alphabet) be legally liable for the troubling videos that are proliferating on the YouTube Kids platform, perhaps under the attractive nuisance doctrine? Should State courts allow Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to trump our legal rights under the common law? (In other words, isn’t Section 230 an unconstitutional encroachment of those police powers reserved to the States in our federal system of government?) #TenthAmendment #Federalism

Is iPhone X the new Blackberry? According to Square Trade, the iPhone X is not only the most breakable smartphone ever made; it’s also the most expensive to repair. So, can anyone explain to us why Apple addicts (like this one) still want (need?) to signal their fiendish devotion to Apple’s overrated and overpriced products?

Perhaps there is no way to prevent evil men from killing innocent people, but there is a way of making those who profit from these killings pay monetary damages to the victims. It’s called tort law. Unfortunately, however, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law on 26 October 2005, protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Given that the U.S. now has a domestic terrorism problem, isn’t it time for the Congress to at least consider repealing this grotesque piece of special-interest legislation? In the alternative, couldn’t a State court simply declare the PLCAA unconstitutional? After all, tort law is by and large the domain of the States, so what constitutional authority does the Congress have under Article I to immunize an entire industry from legal liability under a State’s tort law? (Congress is not really regulating commerce under the PLCAA; it is shielding an entire industry from playing by the same rules of tort law as other industries.)

In our previous post, we shouted out Donald Kochan’s paper on the history of the Takings Clause, available here via SSRN. His work poses an intriguing and important question: From a consumer or marketing perspective, how should we label the various protections and rights set forth in the Constitution, with reference to the right being granted or with reference to the power being controlled? For example, according to Professor Kochan, the Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property without paying just compensation, was not actually called the “Takings Clause” by any court before 1955 nor did any justice of the U.S. Supreme Court use the moniker “Taking Clause” in any opinion before 1978. So, why don’t we refer to this protection of property rights as the Keepings Clause instead of the Takings Clause? Prof Kochan’s academic article applies interdisciplinary insights regarding the power of “framing”, including the study of consumer products labeling in marketing and advertising. Below the fold is an excerpt from the abstract of his paper:  Continue reading →