The second idea is that the double disruption leads to a threeway legal and regulatory mind-set that is divided between: (i) traditional concerns for coherence in the law; (ii) modern concerns with instrumental effectiveness; and (iii) a continuing concern with instrumental effectiveness and risk management but now focused on the possibility of employing technocratic solutions.
The third idea is one of a hierarchy of regulatory responsibilities. Most importantly, regulators have a ‘stewardship’ responsibility for maintaining the ‘commons’; then they have a responsibility
to respect the fundamental values of a particular human social community; and, finally, they have a responsibility to seek out an acceptable balance of legitimate interests within their community. Such disruptions notwithstanding, it is argued that those who have regulatory responsibilities need to be able to think through the regulatory noise to frame questions in the right way and to
respond in ways that are rationally defensible and reasonable. In an age of smart machines and new possibilities for technological fixes, traditional institutional designs might need to be reviewed.
This article assesses the innovation policy objectives underlying the proposed EU Telecom Single Market (TSM) regulation considering disruptive technological developments and asks what the regulator in India can infer from such regulation. The paper explores the network operator’s dilemma of how to deal with investments in a time where fundamental innovation comes from outside, and the regulator’s dilemma of how to improve the conditions for access to the operators’ networks and safeguard a level playing field. The measures with respect to two technological developments:
the deployment of 5G and the goal to ensure very high-speed broadband access in the EU have been analysed. Thought is given to the effectiveness of imposing active and passive infrastructure
arrangements. Should private law prevail over market regulation? A mix of regulatory measures is considered.
Due to the global nature of intellectual property (IP) infringements, a fair number of plaintiffs in Indian IP cases turn out to be foreign entities with no offices or agents in India. Such entities often appoint partners of law firms as their constituted attorneys. However, Indian law prohibits an advocate from acting in the dual capacity of a lawyer and client’s representative. In this article, we discuss the law on the subject, including case law involving IP law firms, and interview leading IP law firms to understand their practices. We suggest strategies which law firms can use to skirt the dual capacity issue, such as appointing non-advocates as constituted attorneys.