In The National Law Review, we argued that Pennsylvania's GRID standards substitute state planning for market knowledge in AI data-center development.

In Truth on the Market, we argued that policymakers can't know enough about AI to regulate it well, so consumers, not bureaucrats, should steer it.

In The National Law Review, we argued that markets, not government mandates, should decide how to power the data centers behind American AI.

In the Washington Examiner, we warned that Brazil's discriminatory digital agenda punishes American tech companies and opens the door to China.

In IPWatchdog, we argued that by taking Hikma v. Amarin, the Supreme Court chose a narrow drug-pricing fight over the patent questions that matter.

In Truth on the Market, we argued that non-binding AI term sheets invite firms to cluster around what Washington favors.

In Truth on the Market, we argued that Hikma v. Amarin reflects a fatal conceit: that courts and regulators can engineer cheaper drugs.

No government, federal or state, knows enough to regulate artificial intelligence. Why markets, not mandates, should govern AI.

In Truth on the Market, we argued that trade enforcement, not imported foreign price controls, is the right answer to high U.S. drug prices.