---
title: "ICLE grounds its 'competition for the market' framework in industrial-organization economics — Schumpeter, dynamic capabilities, Evans & Schmalensee — not evolutionary biology"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
audit_status: "flagged (the note's core claim — that ICLE grounds its framework in named IO-economics lineages — is capture-verified by direct read of the ICLE PDF; but the Evans & Schmalensee formulation ICLE quotes is `[unverified-mechanism — needs primary]`: their original paper was not opened this session, so only the wording ICLE reproduces is confirmed, not their surrounding formal model)"
source_url: "https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/ICLE-Moores-Law-FINAL-2025-11-12-1.pdf"
source_author: "Brian C. Albrecht, Geoffrey A. Manne, David J. Teece, Mario Zúñiga (ICLE White Paper), quoting David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee"
source_date: "2025-11-12T00:00:00.000Z"
source_quote: "As Evans & Schmalensee put it, firms in such industries 'engage in dynamic, Schumpeterian competition for the market, through sequential winner-take-all races to produce drastic innovations, rather than through static price/output competition in the market.'"
source_tier: 2
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-15-does-icles-competition-for-the-market-node-by.md, 2026-07-25"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-07-15-does-icles-competition-for-the-market-node-by.md"
writer_model: "claude-opus-4-8"
date_created: "2026-07-25T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["semiconductors","competition-for-the-market","industrial-organization","schumpeter","dynamic-capabilities","rocks-law","red-queen"]
audits: ["2026-07-26 claude-opus-4-8"]
---


Where the ICLE white paper "From Moore's Law to Market Rivalry"
([[entity-international-center-for-law-and-economics|ICLE]], 2025) grounds
"competition for the market" in a named academic model, it cites economists,
not biologists. Arguing that static market-share snapshots mislead in
semiconductor manufacturing, the authors quote Evans & Schmalensee: firms in
such industries "engage in dynamic, Schumpeterian competition for the market,
through sequential winner-take-all races to produce drastic innovations,
rather than through static price/output competition in the market."

The paper reinforces the same dynamic through three further
management/economics lineages: David Teece's own "dynamic capabilities"
framework (sensing, seizing, transforming); Schumpeter's "perennial gale of
creative destruction"; and "catch-up cycle" theory, invoked to describe
latecomer firms (Samsung, TSMC) leapfrogging incumbents at technology
transitions. All are citable economic and management-theory constructs
distinct from [[entity-leigh-van-valen|Van Valen]]'s evolutionary-biology
model.

This is the substantive counterpart to the paper's Red Queen usage: the
Carroll image is literary color
([[claim-icle-invokes-red-queen-as-carroll-metaphor-not-van-valen-formalism]]),
while the *analytical* engine for "competition *for* the market" — the same
node-by-node framing the vault records for Rock's Law
([[claim-rocks-law-is-moores-laws-economic-inverse]]) — is industrial
organization. That the two clusters (compute economics and evolutionary
biology) share a slogan but not a source model is what keeps the bridge in
[[question-does-competition-for-the-market-map-onto-red-queen-extinction-probability]]
metaphorical rather than formal, and separates ICLE's lineage from the one
route where the Red Queen *was* carried into firm competition with real
hazard-rate methods —
[[claim-barnett-applied-red-queen-to-organizational-competition]].

The Evans & Schmalensee wording is confirmed only as ICLE reproduces it; their
original paper and any surrounding formal model remain
`[unverified-mechanism — needs primary]` until opened directly.