Time, scarcity, and abundance.

Scarcity abounds in law just as abundance is subject to law's limitations. This Article builds on legal theory, economics, and social psychology to present the dialectic of scarcity and abundance as they interplay in our relationship to information and time. This Article has made two overarching arguments: one about scarcity, abundance, and regulation generally and a second about time as an instrument of regulation subject to terms of scarcity and of abundance. The first argument is that scarcity and abundance are rhetorical constructs that inform different regulatory institutions. Scarcity traditionally has mapped onto limits on freedom. Abundance, by contrast, props freedom's unlimited potential. Under the language of scarcity, limits promote outcomes, for example through rights to exclude, deprivation of a benefit, or imposition of a burden. Under the language of abundance, identified freedoms promote outcomes through rights of access or rights to use. Scarcity is distinct from absolute deprivation, and abundance, from unbounded and infinite possibility. Each are building blocks understood relative to the goals of institutional design. Furthermore, scarcity and abundance have an intertwined relationship, a dialectic of famine and plenty. Similarly, freedom and limitations coexist each supporting the other. The second argument of this Article is that time as an instrument of regulation illustrates the uses of scarcity and abundance. Time can be regimented to regulate activities such as work, travel, diet, reproductive rights, social relations, and interaction with media. Time can also be liberating, seemingly abundant using perpetuities, technologies for fast forwarding, rewinding, or shifting content, and increases in the velocity of access and movement. Information retrieval, processing, and sharing are connected to time. It is no surprise that reform proposals for the problems confronting the information economy rest up regulation of time. This Article has demonstrated what these reform proposals share is an attempt to make time scarce, to return to perhaps an idealized era of regimented broadcast within an era of multivalent technological means for information creation and dissemination. But imposing scarcity on abundance ignores the deeper challenges of information glut and distortion: how to manage and assess content.

First-to-invent versus first-to-file: impact of the AIA.

On March 16, 2013, the USPTO switched from a 'first-to-invent' to a 'first-to-file' patent system. Under the 2011 America Invents Act, patents will be awarded to the first inventor to file a patent application as opposed to the date of invention. Now, over a year since the main provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) came into effect, Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst has invited a selection of IP specialists and researchers from the US to discuss the implications of this new law and how it will affect future pharmaceutical and medical R&D. Interview conducted by Alexandra Sklan, Commissioning Editor.

FDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?

The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label should say. This is in direct contrast to medical devices, where the federal statute regulating medical devices expressly provides that state regulations are preempted. This Article discusses basic preemption principles and drugs, and explores the policy ramifications of pro- and anti-preemption policy in the healthcare industry.