Law and Economics—Five Core Principles in the Cloud

  • Marcelo Corrales CompagnucciEmail author
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)


By its very nature, the study of cloud computing transformations is an interdisciplinary endeavor, drawing on complex technical and legal issues that include a variety of other social disciplines. Consequently, structuring a coherent theoretical framework requires careful scrutiny that goes beyond the capacity of any single discipline. Therefore, in order to gain a holistic understanding of these complex issues and to resolve adequately some of these problems, this chapter focuses on the contributions and synergies across the disciplines of law and economics.


  1. Autor D (2010) Lecture note 13–externalities, the Coase Theorem and market remedies. Microeconomic Theory and Public Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, p 4. Accessed 10 May 2019
  2. Ayres I (2006) Ya-HUH: there are and should be penalty defaults. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1172. Accessed 10 May 2019
  3. Ayres I, Gertner R (1989) Filling gaps in incomplete contracts: an economic theory of default rules. Yale Law J 99(1):87–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backhaus J (ed) (2005) The Elgar companion to law and economics, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Barani L (2007) The regulation of sport in the European union: courts and markets. In: Bogusz B, Cygan A, Szyszczak E (eds) The regulation of sport in the European union. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 118Google Scholar
  6. Barzel Y (1997) Economic analysis of property rights, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 4Google Scholar
  7. Becker G (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2):169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker G (1971) The economics of discrimination, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker G (1978) The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Beito D, Gordon P, Tabarrok A (eds) (2002) The voluntary city: choice community and civil society. The University of Michigan Press and the Independent Institute, Oakland, p 406Google Scholar
  11. Benson B, Zimmerman P (2010) Handbook on the economics of crime. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bentham J (1781) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Dover Publications Inc., s.lGoogle Scholar
  13. Berderman D (2010) Custom as a source of law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 48Google Scholar
  14. Berkowitz S (1982) An introduction to structural analysis: the network approach to social research. Butterworth & Co., Toronto, pp 20–21, 119Google Scholar
  15. Borgman C (2015) Big data, little data, no data. Scholarship in the networked world. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bricklin D (2006) The cornucopia of the commons: how to get volunteer labor. Accessed 10 May 2019
  17. Brown J (1997) Transaction costs and vertical integrations. In: Zerbe R, Kovacic W (eds) Research in law and economics, vol 18. Jai Press Inc., Greenwich, pp 2–3Google Scholar
  18. Burrow P, Veljanovski C (eds) (1981) The economic approach to law. Butterworths, London, p 3Google Scholar
  19. Cacciola S, Gibbons R (2012) Coase meets the cloud: how and when can outsourcing IT improve organizational performance? pp 1–32. White Paper. Accessed 10 May 2019
  20. Calabresi G (1961) Some thoughts on risk distribution and the law of torts. Yale Law J 70(4):499–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Caplin A, Schotter A (2010) The foundations of positive and normative economics: a handbook, handbooks of economics methodology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Carolan E (2009) The new separation of powers: a theory for the modern state. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cavalcanti J (2015) Effects of IT on enterprise architecture, governance and growth. IGI Global, Hershey, p 73Google Scholar
  24. Cheung S (1973) The fable of the bees: an economic investigation. J Law Econ 16(1):11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cheung S (1980) The myth of social cost. Cato Paper, No. 16. Cato Institute, s.lGoogle Scholar
  26. Coase R (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Coleman J (1983) The economic analysis of law. In: Kuperberg M, Beitz C (eds) Law, economics, and philosophy. Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, New Jersey, p 110Google Scholar
  29. Commons J (1934) Institutional economic: its place in political economy. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  30. Cooter R, Ulen T (2008) Law & economics, 5th edn, Pearson International Edition. Prentice Hall, Boston, p 220Google Scholar
  31. Corrales Compagnucci M (2010) Protecting patients’ rights in clinical trial scenarios: the “Bee Metaphor” and the simbiotic relationship. In: Bottis M (ed) An information law for the 21st century. Third international seminar on information law 2010. Nomiki Bibliothiki Group, Athens, pp 5–13Google Scholar
  32. Cox Buck S (1985) No tragedy on the commons. Environ Ethics 7(1):49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cross R, Thomas R (2009) Driving results through social networks: how top organizations leverage networks for performance and growth, loc. 117. Wiley (Kindle Edition), San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  34. Crowe B (1969) The tragedy of the commons revisited. Science 166(3909):1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dahlman C (1991) The tragedy of the commons that wasn’t: on technical solutions to the institutions game. Popul Environ 12(3):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. De Geest G (ed) (2011) Contract law and economics. Encyclopedia of law and economics, vol 6, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 228–229Google Scholar
  37. Demsetz H (1968) The cost of transacting. Quart J Econ 82:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. DiMatteo L, Janssen A (2014) Interpretive methodologies in the interpretation of the CISG. In: DiMatteo L (ed) International sales law: a global challenge. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 99Google Scholar
  39. Dittrich M (2001) Internalisierung externer Effekte: Ein kritischer Vergleich der Ansaetze von Pigou und Coase, Diplomarbeit an der Technischen Universitaet Chemnitz Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Diplomica GmbH, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  40. Driver J (2010) The history of utilitarianism, stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  41. Duggan A (1982) The economics of consumer protection: a critique of the Chicago School case against intervention. Adel Law Rev 2:4–6Google Scholar
  42. Elkin-Koren N, Salzberger R (2013) The law and economics of intellectual property in the digital age: the limits of analysis. Routledge research in intellectual property. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  43. Ellickson R (1994) Order without law: how neighbors settle disputes, Revised Edition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Epstein R (2011) Liberty, property, and the law: private and common property. Routledge, New York, p 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Felice F, Vatiero M (2012) Elinor Ostrom and the solution to the tragedy of the commons. American Enterprise Institute. Accessed 10 May 2019
  46. Frame D (2013) Framing decisions: decision making that accounts for irrationality, people, and constraints. Wiley, San Francisco, pp 173–175Google Scholar
  47. Freeman L (2004) The development of social network analysis: a study in the sociology of science. Empirical Press, Vancouver, p 24Google Scholar
  48. Friedman D (2000) Law’s order: what economics has to do with law and why it matters. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 8–18 and 145–170Google Scholar
  49. Georgakopoulos N (2005) Principles and methods of law and economics: basic tools for normative reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 3Google Scholar
  50. Ghosh S (2014) Komesar’s Razor: Comparative Institutional Analysis in a World of Networks. Wis Law Rev 455. Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper 1244(2013)Google Scholar
  51. Giuffre K (2013) Communities and networks: using social network analysis to rethink urban and community studies, locs. 143 and 149. Polity Press (Kindle Edition), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Global Pulse White Paper (2012) Big data for development: opportunities & challenge. Accessed 10 May 2019
  53. Gray C (ed) (2012) The philosophy of law: an encyclopedia, “Posner, Richard Allen,” vol I–II. Routledge, London, p 665Google Scholar
  54. Gunduz-Oguducu S, Etaner-Uyar A (eds) (2014) Social networks: analysis and case studies. Springer, Vienna, pp 14–15Google Scholar
  55. Hacket S (2001) Environmental and natural resources economics: theory, policy, and the sustainable society, 2nd edn. M. E. Sharpe Inc., New York, p 130Google Scholar
  56. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Harrison J (2003) Law and economics in a nutshell, 3rd edn. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, p 39Google Scholar
  58. Hartmann E, Kjaer P (eds) (2015) The evolution of intermediary institutions in Europe: from corporatism to governance. Palgrave McMillan, New York, pp 157–158Google Scholar
  59. Hess C, Ostrom E (2007) Introduction: an overview of the knowledge commons. In: Hess C, Ostrom E (eds) Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  60. Hirsch W (1988) Law and economics: an introductory analysis, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, pp 18–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Huang J, Gao L (2013) Wireless network pricing. Synthesis lectures on communication networks. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, p 124Google Scholar
  62. Keohane R, Ostrom E (eds) (1995) Local commons and global interdependence: heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Kersch K (1996) Imperfect alternatives: choosing institutions in law, economics, and public policy (Book Review), vol 6(1), pp 13–15.
  64. Komarek J (2012) Institutional dimension of constitutional pluralism. In: Avbelj M, Komarek J (eds) Constitutional pluralism in the European union and beyond. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 241Google Scholar
  65. Komesar N (1994) Imperfect alternatives: choosing institutions in law, economics, and public policy. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  66. Komesar N (2001) Law’s limits: the rule of law and the supply and demand of rights. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Lane J et al (eds) (2014) Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Lewin J (1995) Toward a new ecological law & economics. In: Malloy R, Braum C (eds) Law and economics: new and critical perspectives, vol 4. Peter Lang, New York, p 254Google Scholar
  69. Maata K (2010) Law and economics from lawyers’ point of view. In: Rosaeg E, Schaefer H, Stavang E (eds) Law and economics: essays in honor of erling eide. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo, p 133Google Scholar
  70. Maduro M (1998) We the court: the European court of justice and the European economic constitution: a critical reading of Article 30 of the EC treaty. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 117Google Scholar
  71. Mair J, Marti I (2009) Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: a case study from Bangladesh. J Bus Ventur 24(5):422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Malloy R (1990) Law and economics: a comparative approach to theory and practice. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, pp 14–15Google Scholar
  73. Mankiv N (2007) Principles of microeconomics, 4th edn. Thomson South-Western, Mason, p 210Google Scholar
  74. Marsden V (2005) Recent developments in network measurement, loc. 148. In: Carrington P, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press (Kindle Edition), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Maskin E (2005) On the rationale for penalty default rules. In: Update version of the keynote presented at the “Symposium on Default Rules in Private and Public Law,”. Florida State University College of Law, March 25, 2005, pp 1–11. Accessed 10 May 2019
  76. McCall J (2010) The honeybee as teacher. In: Zambelli S (ed) Computable, constructive and behavioral economic dynamics, Essays in Honor of Kumaraswamy (Vela) Velupillai. Routledge, London, pp 166–167Google Scholar
  77. McCloskey D (1998) Other things equal: the so-called Coase Theorem. East Econ J 24(3):367–371Google Scholar
  78. Medema S (2010) Adam Smith and the Chicago School. In: Emmett R (ed) The elgar companion to the Chicago School of economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 46–48Google Scholar
  79. Medema S (2015) From dismal to dominance? Law and economics and the values of imperial science, historically contemplated. In: Hatzis A, Mercuro N (eds) Law and economics: philosophical issues and fundamental questions. Routledge, Oxon, pp 70–74Google Scholar
  80. Mercuro N, Medema S (1995) Schools of thought in law and economics: a Kuhnian competition. In: Malloy R, Braum C (eds) Law and economics: new and critical perspectives, vol 4. Peter Lang, New York, p 101Google Scholar
  81. Mercuro N, Medema S (1997) Economics and the law: from posner to post-modernism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 51–54Google Scholar
  82. Miceli T (1997) Economics of the law: torts, contracts, property. Oxford University Press, Oxford, LitigationGoogle Scholar
  83. Miceli T (2004) The economic approach to law. Stanford economics and finance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 2–3Google Scholar
  84. Michie J (ed) (2000) Reader’s guide to the social science, vol 1. Routledge, London, p 117Google Scholar
  85. Moran E, Ostrom E (eds) (2005) Seeing the forest and the trees: human-environment interactions in forest ecosystems. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  86. Naughton J (2013a) Coase idea explains internet economics. The Japan Times. Accessed 10 May 2019
  87. Naughton J (2013b) How a 1930s theory explains the economics of the internet. The Guardian. Accessed 10 May 2019
  88. Nerlove M, Razin A, Sadka E (1987) Household and economy: welfare economics of endogenous fertility. Economic theory, econometrics, and mathematical economics. Academic Press Inc., Orlando, pp 38–39Google Scholar
  89. Newmark C (ed) (2009) Reading in applied microeconomics: the power of the market. Routledge, London, pp 195 et seqGoogle Scholar
  90. Nicholson W, Snyde C (2010) Intermediate microeconomics and its application. Cengage Learning, Mason, pp 598–599Google Scholar
  91. Noll J (2005) Rechtsökonomie: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Verlag Österreich, Vienna, p 21Google Scholar
  92. OECD (2004) Declaration on access to research data from public funding. C (2004)31/REV1. Accessed 10 May 2019
  93. OECD (2006) Recommendation of the council concerning access to research data from public funding, 184. Accessed 10 May 2019
  94. OECD (2015) Data-driven innovation: big data for growth and well-being. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 187–188Google Scholar
  95. Oppenheimer M, Mercuro N (2004) Law and economics: alternatives economic approaches to legal and regulatory issues. Routledge, New York, p 3Google Scholar
  96. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ostrom E (2000) Reformulating the commons. Swiss Polit Sci Rev 6(1):29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Ostrom E et al (1999) Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284(5412):278–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Özyer T et al (eds) (2013) The influence of technology on social network analysis and mining, loc. 49. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  101. Parisi F (2004) Positive, normative and functional schools in law and economics. Eur J Law Econ 18(3):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Perkins A (2010) Property rights to information in the cloud–cloud based view on the Coase Theorem. Accessed 10 May 2019
  103. Peterson E (2009) A billion dollars a day: the economics and politics of agricultural subsidies. Wiley, Chichester, p 30Google Scholar
  104. Pierce R (1995) A comment on “Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy”. Calif Law Rev 83(3):941–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Pigou C (1932) The economics of welfare, 4th edn. Mc Millan and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  106. Pinheiro C (2011) Social network analysis in telecommunications, locs., 205, 221 and 220. Wiley (Kindle Edition), HobokenGoogle Scholar
  107. Posner R (1983) The economics of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p 4Google Scholar
  108. Posner R (1998) Economic analysis of law, 5th edn. Aspen Publishers Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  109. Posner E (2003) Economic analysis of contract law after three decades: success or failure? Yale Law J 112(829). Accessed 10 May 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Posner E (2005) There are no penalty default rules in contract law, pp 1–34. Accessed 10 May 2019
  111. Posner R, Parisi F (eds) (2003) The economic foundations of private law. Elgar critical writings reader. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  112. Prell C (2012) Social network analysis: history, theory and methodology. Sage Publications, London, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  113. Pryke S (2012) Social network analysis in construction. Wiley, Oxford, pp 87, 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Purnhagen K, Rott P (eds) (2014) Varieties in European economic law and regulation. Liber Amicorum for Hans Micklitz, Studies in European economic law and regulation 3. Springer, Cham, p 833Google Scholar
  115. Reder M (1982) Chicago economics: permanence and change. J Econ Lit 20:6Google Scholar
  116. Rees S, Gallagher K (2013) Detection via merged friendship-groups, loc. 737. In: Özyer T et al (eds) The influence of technology on social network analysis and mining. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  117. Richardson M, Hadfield G (eds) (1999) The second wave of law and economics. The Federation Press, Leichhardt, p 34Google Scholar
  118. Riis T, Nielsen R (eds) (1998) Law and economics: methodology and application. DJOF Publishing, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  119. Rittich K (2002) Recharacterizing restructuring: law, distribution and gender in market reform. The Erik Castren Institute of international law and human rights. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p. 138Google Scholar
  120. Rose C (1986) The comedy of the commons: commerce, custom, and inherently public property. Faculty scholarship series, Paper 1828. Accessed 10 May 2019
  121. Rose F (1999) Information age economy: the economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, p 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Rutherford D (2013) Routledge dictionary of economics, “externality”, 3rd edn. Routledge, London, p 603Google Scholar
  123. Samuels W, Schmid A (eds) (1981) Law and economics: an institutional perspective. Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  124. Sandeen S (2010) The value of irrationality in the IP equation. In: Flanagan A, Montagnani M (eds) Intellectual property law: economic and social justice perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 47Google Scholar
  125. Sandel M (2010) Justice–what’s the right thing to do. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p 23Google Scholar
  126. Sandler T (2001) Economic concepts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–67Google Scholar
  127. Schlag P (1989) The problem of transaction costs. South Calif Law Rev 62:1662–1700Google Scholar
  128. Schmalbeck R (1983) The justice of economics: an analysis of wealth maximization as a normative goal. Columbia Law Rev 83:491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Schmidtchen D (2009) Transport, welfare and externalities: replacing the polluter pays principle with the cheapest cost avoider principle. New horizons in law and economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 32Google Scholar
  130. Schrammel T (2010) SME market entry in transition economies: the potential of cluster initiatives to fill institutional voids. In: Kakouris A (ed) Proceedings of the 5th European conference on innovation and entrepreneurship, ECIE 2010. University of Athens, Greece, p 508Google Scholar
  131. Schrammel T (2014) Clusters as an instrument to bridge institutional voids in transition economies: lessons learned from southeast Europe. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, p 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  133. Sodeur W, Taube V (2008) The flow of information in evolving social groups. In: Friemel T (ed) Why context matters: applications of social network analysis, 1st edn. VS Research, Wiesbaden, p 100Google Scholar
  134. Stray Ryssdal A (1995) Legal realism and economics as behaviour: a scandinavian look at economic analysis of law. Juridisk Forlag AS, OsloGoogle Scholar
  135. Sutherland K (ed) (1993) Adam smith wealth of nations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  136. Teramoto S (2013) Sociomatrix, lecture notes taken during the Contemporary Issues of Intellectual Property Law course at the LL.M. Program in International Economic and Business Law (IEBL), Kyushu University, 23 Oct 2013Google Scholar
  137. Teramoto S, Jurčys P (2014) Intermediaries, trust and efficiency of communication: a social network perspective. In: Fenwick M, van Uytsel S, Wrbka S (eds) Networked governance, Transnational business and the law. Springer, Berlin, pp 116–119Google Scholar
  138. Tsvetovat M, Kouznetsov A (2011) Social network analysis for startups: finding connections on the social web O’Reilly, Sebastopol, pp 4, 19Google Scholar
  139. Veljanovski C (1982) The new law-and-economics: a research review. Center for Socio-Legal Studies, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  140. Veljanovski C (1990) The economics of law: an introductory text. The Institute of Economics Affair, London, p 34Google Scholar
  141. Ver Eecke W (2008) Ethical dimensions of the economy: making use of hegel and the concepts of public and merit goods. Springer, Berlin, p 65Google Scholar
  142. Wall D (2014) The sustainable economics of Elinor Ostrom: commons, contestation and craft, Routledge studies in ecological economics. Routledge, London, p 89Google Scholar
  143. Warren A (2006) The inverse commons–a discontinuity in business models. The Farrell center for corporate innovation and entrepreneurship, Smeal College of Business, Penn State University, p 1. Accessed 10 May 2019
  144. Wasserman S, Faust K (2009) Social networks analysis: methods and applications, locs. 817, 1062. Cambridge University Press (Kindle Edition), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  145. Weigel W (2008) Economics of the law: a primer. Routledge advanced texts in economics and finance. Routledge, London, p 44Google Scholar
  146. Williamson O (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  147. Williamson O (1981a) The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Sociol 87(3):548–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Williamson O (1981b) Contract analysis: the transaction cost approach. In: Burrows P, Veljanovski C (eds) The economic approach to law. Butterworths, London, p 41Google Scholar
  149. Williamson O (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, market, relational contracting. The Free Press, New York, p 16Google Scholar
  150. Williamson O (1993) Transaction cost economics meets posnerian law and economics. J Inst Theor Econ (JITE) 149(1):99–118Google Scholar
  151. Williamson O (1996) The mechanism of governance. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  152. Williamson O (2002) The theory of the firm as governance structure: from choice to contract. J Econ Perspect 16(3):171–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Yahklef A (2000) The internet as an opportunity to rethink the role of the intermediary. Consum Mark Cult 4(1):39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Zerbe R (2001) Economic efficiency in law and economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, p 8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL)University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations