5 ms·

That regulation is stifling innovation is in no way obvious. It is a commonly repeated talking point but I am unaware of any factual arguments that back this as

That regulation is stifling innovation is in no way obvious. It is a commonly repeated talking point but I am unaware of any factual arguments that back this assertion up.

croon 10y ago
Well, it can at least be in situations where incumbants lobby for needlessly complex regulation to stifle competition. See: for example tax code and fda process for epipen alternatives. And just for an, albeit small, recent example [1], where there could easily exist better solutions, and the regulation could be worded more generally instead of giving specific mandates. I'm sure there are more and much better examples, but as with everything we humans do, there are good practices and bad practices. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/14/502082110/pump-up-the-sound-regulators-tell-makers-of-electric-and-hybrid-cars http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/14/502082110/...
xori 10y ago
How about the Uber cases where cities or countries are banning the company because the Taxi companies are mad they are evading the transport regulations. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-banned-around-the-world-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-bann...
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Your claim that Uber is being banned because "taxi companies are mad" ignores several documented issues around driver safety, background checks, and driver pay (to name a few) that have been cited as cause for bans.
rglullis 10y ago
Really?! Just to give you one example that hits very close to home: the EU parliament recently start this push for companies that provide OTT communication services (Whatsapp, Skype, Viber, etc...) to comply to phone companies regulations. Among other things, this would mean that all of the companies that provide end-to-end encryption would simply have to stop doing it, given that phone companies need to be able to provide "Lawful Interception".
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  The issue with that is not that innovation is being stiffled though, it's rather an issue of privacy. For instance, there's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits any innovation on encryption that would reconcile the user's reasonable expectation of privacy with the authorities' wish to have access to the user's communications. And the issue of appropriate and adequate safeguards of such innovation so that the authorities themselves don't misuse it, is yet another issue altogether.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > The issue with that is not that innovation is being stiffled though, it's rather an issue of privacy. Encryption was an innovation. Communication that's private as a matter of technology rather than as a matter of legislation is an innovation. Along the same lines: recording and time-shifting video and audio was an innovation. Enshrining the state of copyright law at the time would have prohibited it. Innovation often does things that existing developers, users, and regulators didn't anticipate. > For instance, there's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits any innovation on encryption that would reconcile the user's reasonable expectation of privacy with the authorities' wish to have access to the user's communications. There's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits perpetual motion machines or time travel, either. The resolution of those two expectations is that one side loses and the other wins; the only question is which.
cookiecaper 10y ago
IP law including copyrights and patents, as currently implemented, undoubtedly stifle innovation.
Canutesun 10y ago
Trying working at a startup in a heavily regulated industry, such as finance or telecommunications. It becomes obvious very quickly why those industries converge around large players, and that reason is a huge regulatory hurdle to even get started.

That regulation is stifling innovation is in no way obvious. It is a commonly repeated talking point but I am unaware of any factual arguments that back this assertion up.

croon 10y ago

Well, it can at least be in situations where incumbants lobby for needlessly complex regulation to stifle competition. See: for example tax code and fda process for epipen alternatives. And just for an, albeit small, recent example [1], where there could easily exist better solutions, and the regulation could be worded more generally instead of giving specific mandates. I'm sure there are more and much better examples, but as with everything we humans do, there are good practices and bad practices. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/14/502082110/pump-up-the-sound-regulators-tell-makers-of-electric-and-hybrid-cars http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/14/502082110/...

xori 10y ago

How about the Uber cases where cities or countries are banning the company because the Taxi companies are mad they are evading the transport regulations. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-banned-around-the-world-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-bann...

knieveltech 10y ago
Your claim that Uber is being banned because "taxi companies are mad" ignores several documented issues around driver safety, background checks, and driver pay (to name a few) that have been cited as cause for bans.

rglullis 10y ago

Really?! Just to give you one example that hits very close to home: the EU parliament recently start this push for companies that provide OTT communication services (Whatsapp, Skype, Viber, etc...) to comply to phone companies regulations. Among other things, this would mean that all of the companies that provide end-to-end encryption would simply have to stop doing it, given that phone companies need to be able to provide "Lawful Interception".

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
The issue with that is not that innovation is being stiffled though, it's rather an issue of privacy. For instance, there's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits any innovation on encryption that would reconcile the user's reasonable expectation of privacy with the authorities' wish to have access to the user's communications. And the issue of appropriate and adequate safeguards of such innovation so that the authorities themselves don't misuse it, is yet another issue altogether.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > The issue with that is not that innovation is being stiffled though, it's rather an issue of privacy. Encryption was an innovation. Communication that's private as a matter of technology rather than as a matter of legislation is an innovation. Along the same lines: recording and time-shifting video and audio was an innovation. Enshrining the state of copyright law at the time would have prohibited it. Innovation often does things that existing developers, users, and regulators didn't anticipate. > For instance, there's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits any innovation on encryption that would reconcile the user's reasonable expectation of privacy with the authorities' wish to have access to the user's communications. There's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits perpetual motion machines or time travel, either. The resolution of those two expectations is that one side loses and the other wins; the only question is which.

cookiecaper 10y ago

IP law including copyrights and patents, as currently implemented, undoubtedly stifle innovation.

Canutesun 10y ago

Trying working at a startup in a heavily regulated industry, such as finance or telecommunications. It becomes obvious very quickly why those industries converge around large players, and that reason is a huge regulatory hurdle to even get started.