I thought you all might appreciate this story about Votizen, which describes the social media efforts to get the Startup Visa Act drafted and passed. It’s a couple of years old (so we know the Act has stalled), but the story is interesting nevertheless.
This article discusses crowdfunding and some of its benefits, such as testing and validating entrepreneurs’ assumptions about their product and the opportunity to secure funds, and its drawbacks, such as the risk that the product could be copied.
This article provides a very well-informed perspective, and useful baseline information, on today’s venture capital landscape.
Interesting article that summarizes the issues involved with attempting to integrate crowd funding into our securities law. The issue seems to come down to protecting investors on the one hand while maintaining the freedom and flexibility that crowd funding presents for entrepreneur’s funding.
This Forbes article suggests that the United States has succeeded so greatly in the field of innovation because of our country’s diversity and ability to attract the best minds from across the world.
“More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants (90 companies) or by their children (an additional 114 companies)…The cost of creating innovation teams around [foreign nationals] would be far less—and the chance of success far greater—if we could be certain that those we recruit will be here for the longer run. Increasing the allocations of and more strategically implementing H1-B visas is crucial.”
Here is an interesting article inquiring into how the future of software patents may play out post Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, an upcoming case before the Supreme Court. The article begs the question, does the current jurisprudence regarding patents actually stifle – rather than promote innovation? Considering how much technology affects our every day lives, a shift in how software patents are treated by the courts may have far reaching implications. From an entrepreneurs perspective, I can see two very valid yet opposing arguments. The first is that one could argue that the current state of patents creates an impenetrable barrier to entry, because those already in the market hold such an expansive and comprehensive patent portfolio that it would be all but impossible to enter the market without utilizing the something that has already been patented. On the other hand, one who has already created a patent may argue that without the ability to patent (even the most mundane) things, there is no incentive to even to attempt to enter the market in the first place.
Article by Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie on the conflict between government regulation that protects existing businesses, and innovation.
State level reform in an attempt to spur the economy within a struggling city.
This NYTimes blog series provides a handful of interesting perspectives on various aspects of foreign technology workers in America.
A quick article from the Washington Post on why the 1986 immigration overhaul didn’t accomplish what it was intended to do:
What are the assurances in current proposals that they will be more successful at providing a path to legal status, accommodating employer demand (without greasing the wheels for exploitation), and enforcing the border (which is as much a national security issue at this point as an economic one)?