<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;entrepreneurship&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:21:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Startups And Innovators Speak Out In Favor Of Fixing CFAA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130312/16532722303/startups-innovators-speak-out-favor-fixing-cfaa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130312/16532722303/startups-innovators-speak-out-favor-fixing-cfaa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The good folks over at the EFF have <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/startups-and-innovators-send-letter-congress-demanding-cfaa-reform" target="_blank">posted a letter from a group of startups and innovators to Congress</a> seeking reform of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), which has been abused for years, most notably and recently, in the case against Aaron Swartz (full disclosure: I helped review the initial letter and helped the EFF get some of the signatures on the letter).  This is important, because, as we have noted, plenty of innovators and entrepreneurs <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130311/01575622278/innovators-break-stuff-including-rules-how-gates-jobs-zuckerberg-could-have-been-targeted-like-aaron-swartz.shtml">could have been</a> charged under this law for some of their random hacking experiments, some of which directly led them to create amazing innovations.
<br /><br />
Many people have thought that the tech industry isn't as interested in CFAA reform, since it supposedly protects them in cases where they have been hacked, but that's not the case.  Through out the startup community, I've heard many people who were horrified to learn about the charges against Aaron Swartz, as they quickly realized how easy it would be for a Justice Department official to spin what they themselves were doing into something nefarious sounding.  That does not help innovation.
<br /><br />
No one is in favor of having no rules at all, but clearly the CFAA is outdated, broken and widely abused.  Fixing the law to focus on <i>actual</i> malicious and nefarious attacks would be a huge step forward, not just for the public, but for innovators and entrepreneurs who often build great things by starting with a simple hack.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130312/16532722303/startups-innovators-speak-out-favor-fixing-cfaa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130312/16532722303/startups-innovators-speak-out-favor-fixing-cfaa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130312/16532722303/startups-innovators-speak-out-favor-fixing-cfaa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130312/16532722303</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:36:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/13153120790/george-mcgovern-why-politicians-who-havent-built-business-are-bad-regulating.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/13153120790/george-mcgovern-why-politicians-who-havent-built-business-are-bad-regulating.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With the passing of former Senator and Presidential candidate George McGovern this weekend, the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578070543545022704.html" target="_blank">reran a 1992 column he wrote</a> about how much he learned from trying to start a business after he'd left politics.  TheMoneyIllusion <a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=17208" target="_blank">has an excerpt as well</a>:
<blockquote><i>
In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut&#8217;s Stratford Inn. Hotels, inns and restaurants have always held a special fascination for me. The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility &#8212; complete with an experienced manager and staff.
<br /><br />
In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn&#8217;s 43-year leasehold. <b>I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.</b>
</i></blockquote>
He goes on to talk about how all sorts of crazy regulations, that may have appeared to make sense to the politicians passing them, were actually serving to create a huge headache for businesses -- often because whoever is writing the laws has no idea what they're talking about:
<blockquote><i>
In short, &#8220;one-size-fits-all&#8221; rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels &#8212; e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales &#8212; takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.
<br /><br />
The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don&#8217;t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.
</i></blockquote>
When we talk about Washington DC (and other governments) passing regulations that impact how entrepreneurs and innovators build great new companies, this is the kind of thing that we're worried about.  The vast majority of elected officials really have no idea.  They pass rules and regulations that <i>sound good</i> and are meant to serve a good purpose, but they rarely take into account the consequences of the regulations they pass or how they'll impact how companies act.  This is not to say that there shouldn't be regulations, but that regulators need (a) a much better understanding of business and (b) they need to be aware that the impact of regulations can be stifling.  I've never understood why every piece of legislation that will impact companies doesn't come with specific metrics to determine if it's a success and a mandatory review period / sunset provision, in which an independent board is tasked with determining if the law accomplished what it set out to do, and if there were any costly side effects or unintended consequences.
<br /><br />
McGovern seemed to discover all that after his political career was over, but with his passing, perhaps we can encourage current politicians to recognize just how big an issue this is today.  Especially when we rely on so many new technologies, innovations and services on a daily basis.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/13153120790/george-mcgovern-why-politicians-who-havent-built-business-are-bad-regulating.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/13153120790/george-mcgovern-why-politicians-who-havent-built-business-are-bad-regulating.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/13153120790/george-mcgovern-why-politicians-who-havent-built-business-are-bad-regulating.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-points</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121022/13153120790</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Canada's New Startup Visa Is Progressive By U.S. Standards, But For Them It Could Be A Step Backwards</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120911/17341020348/canadas-new-startup-visa-is-progressive-us-standards-them-it-could-be-step-backwards.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120911/17341020348/canadas-new-startup-visa-is-progressive-us-standards-them-it-could-be-step-backwards.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years now, I've talked about the importance of some sort of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/0156184477.shtml">startup visa</a> for immigrants starting companies in the US.  Lots of people in the government agree with this idea, but they haven't passed it because it's about "immigration."  And no politician wants to take on immigration as a whole, because then it turns into nationalism about how those crazy foreigners are taking our jobs -- even when that's empirically <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110804/15560315397/study-shows-bringing-skilled-immigrants-does-not-hurt-americans-may-increase-innovation.shtml">not true</a>.  Canada, however, has now <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/starting-out/canada-designs-new-visa-for-immigrant-entrepreneurs/article4537339/" target="_blank">put in place a new startup visa</a> that is somewhat similar to the various proposals floated down here in the US: entrepreneurs can get a visa if they have funding from a venture capitalist.
<br /><br />
While I think that such a law would be a step forward in the US, in Canada it seems like it might actually be a step <i>backwards</i>.  That's because Canada already had very open borders to job-creating immigrants.  Its old rules allowed an immigrant a visa if they opened a business that would hire one person for one year.  But those visas are no longer being offered.  And that seems like a problem.  My big <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1846078684.shtml">complaint</a> over plans for a startup visa that require venture capitalist investment is that it assumes that entrepreneurs require venture capital.  But that's not true.  Yes, for certain types of business, including capital-intensive, high-growth businesses, it often (though not always) makes sense to raise venture capital, but for many other successful types of businesses there are alternative sources of funding -- including (these days) things like crowdfunding and (*gasp*) revenue funding.
<br /><br />
Imagine a couple of entrepreneurs want to build some new gadget, so they put it up on Kickstarter and it raises $1 million.  Does it then make sense to also require them to get a VC to "bless" them by giving them money... and taking a ton of equity and control?  Or does it make sense to just say "hey, these guys are likely to have a legitimate business that will create jobs, let them in."  My other fear with linking a startup visa to VC funding is that it gives that much more control and power to VCs in negotiations.  They now know that their money and investment isn't just a ticket to funding the company, it's a ticket into the country where they want to live.  They can extract much more favorable terms under those conditions.  While I'm not in the camp that thinks VCs are "bad," there are some who clearly take advantage of entrepreneurs, and a startup visa linked to venture money only makes that more possible.
<br /><br />
So, yes, we need a startup visa, and Canada should have one too.  But it seems like Canada is going backwards with its efforts, taking away from a visa plan that works for all kinds of companies, and instead giving venture capitalists the ability to choose who gets into the country.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120911/17341020348/canadas-new-startup-visa-is-progressive-us-standards-them-it-could-be-step-backwards.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120911/17341020348/canadas-new-startup-visa-is-progressive-us-standards-them-it-could-be-step-backwards.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120911/17341020348/canadas-new-startup-visa-is-progressive-us-standards-them-it-could-be-step-backwards.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-all-businesses-need-funding-from-VCs...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120911/17341020348</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:37:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>Continuing The Discussion On A True Innovation Agenda</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120306/00343717995/continuing-discussion-true-innovation-agenda.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120306/00343717995/continuing-discussion-true-innovation-agenda.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, over on our Step 2 discussion platform we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120226/23173117883/help-create-innovation-agenda-you-wish-politicians-would-support.shtml">kicked off</a> a discussion on <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/381/help-create-innovation-agenda-wish-politicians-would-support" target="_blank">what an "innovation agenda" might look like</a> for a US-politician for 2012.  What kinds of regulatory changes should they be focused on?  This effort, done in partnership with <a href="http://engineadvocacy.com/" target="_blank">Engine Advocacy</a>, has already kicked off a nice discussion over there with some interesting ideas being tossed around.  If you haven't yet, please join in the discussion.  I'm not surprised that copyright issues and open internet issues top the list of things most interesting to folks -- the SOPA/PIPA debate has pretty much guaranteed that.  I am <i>a little</i> surprised that issues around helping skilled entrepreneurs -- the folks who <i>create</i> jobs -- was seen as less of an issue compared to some of the others on the list.  Either way, the discussion is still going on there, and we'll be taking it further over the coming weeks and months, so feel free to join in.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120306/00343717995/continuing-discussion-true-innovation-agenda.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120306/00343717995/continuing-discussion-true-innovation-agenda.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120306/00343717995/continuing-discussion-true-innovation-agenda.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>join-in</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120306/00343717995</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:30:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Help Create An 'Innovation Agenda' You Wish Politicians Would Support</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120226/23173117883/help-create-innovation-agenda-you-wish-politicians-would-support.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120226/23173117883/help-create-innovation-agenda-you-wish-politicians-would-support.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <center>
<b><a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/381/help-create-innovation-agenda-wish-politicians-would-support">Join the discussion over at Step 2</a></b>
</center>
In the last few months it's become clear that it's no longer acceptable for politicians to "not get" the internet.  The internet has become such a key part of our lives that anyone who is trying to regulate it without understanding it doesn't deserve to be in office.  Of course, there are some politicians who really do want to do the right thing, and it's time to help them out.  In association with <a href="http://engineadvocacy.com/" target="_blank">Engine Advocacy</a>, we're looking to do a little "crowdsourcing" around what an internet "Innovation Agenda" <i>should</i> look like for any politician in 2012.  We're starting with this basic principle:
<blockquote>
<i>New businesses are the key to job creation and economic growth, and the Internet is one of the most fertile platforms for new businesses ever established.
<br /><br />
We believe deeply in the value of <b>decentralized, emergent, bottom-up innovation</b>, and we want to shape public policies that will allow it to flourish.</i>
</blockquote>
From there, we have a list of <a href="http://engineadvocacy.com/issues.htm" target="_blank">twelve topics</a> that we think are important -- but we want your input.  So we've posted this same thing both here and over at <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/381/help-create-innovation-agenda-wish-politicians-would-support" target="_blank">our Step 2 discussion platform</a>.  Over at Step 2, we've also posted those initial twelve topics, with each one as a separate comment on the original post, so you can vote them up and down.  If you want to really participate, <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/step2/381/help-create-innovation-agenda-wish-politicians-would-support">please head on over to Step 2</a>, where you can do three separate things (and, yes, your Techdirt login works there too):
<ol>
<li><b>Suggest your own topics</b> that should be part of an innovation agenda by responding to the main post.</li>
<li><b>Vote on existing topics</b> to show which ones are more important... and which ones are less important.
</li><li><b>Comment on the existing topics</b> to provide feedback or suggest ways to improve them.
</li></ol>
Please help us shape a comprehensive Innovation Agenda for 2012.  Engine Advocacy is working closely with the internet community and helping give them a voice in DC, and this is one way to take part, as your suggestions may help shape what politicians are hearing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120226/23173117883/help-create-innovation-agenda-you-wish-politicians-would-support.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120226/23173117883/help-create-innovation-agenda-you-wish-politicians-would-support.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120226/23173117883/help-create-innovation-agenda-you-wish-politicians-would-support.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>make-a-statement</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120226/23173117883</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:51:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>Online Technology Entrepreneurship Class At Stanford Postponed... Because Of Copyright</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/04150617840/online-technology-entrepreneurship-class-stanford-postponed-because-copyright.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/04150617840/online-technology-entrepreneurship-class-stanford-postponed-because-copyright.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Constitutional clause often referred to as the Copyright Clause involves granting the power to Congress:
<blockquote><i>
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
</i></blockquote>
Many people get confused and don't realize that the "Science" part was really about copyright (not the "useful arts.")  And, by "science" they really meant "learning."  In fact, the very first US Copyright law, in 1790, was <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Copyright_Act_of_1790_in_Colombian_Centinel.jpg" target="_blank">entitled</a>:
<blockquote><i>
An ACT for the Encouragement of Learning
</i></blockquote>
So you would think that the use of copyright law to <i>block</i> the encouragement of learning would be unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, it happens all the time.  Jon sent over the news that the online Technology Entrepreneurship class he'd been looking forward to taking from Stanford University has apparently <a href="http://eesley.blogspot.com/2012/02/technology-entrepreneurship.html" target="_blank">been postponed due to copyright issues</a>.  According to the classes' professor, Chuck Eesley:
<blockquote><i>
Unfortunately, the launch of my Technology Entrepreneurship online course has been placed on hold, due to delays surrounding copyright and intellectual property clearance issues. We are working on this and I anticipate providing you with an update within the next few months.
</i></blockquote>
In an age where there's lots of support and interest in online education, to find out that copyright law, of all things, is being used to <i>block</i> education seems like a complete travesty.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/04150617840/online-technology-entrepreneurship-class-stanford-postponed-because-copyright.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/04150617840/online-technology-entrepreneurship-class-stanford-postponed-because-copyright.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/04150617840/online-technology-entrepreneurship-class-stanford-postponed-because-copyright.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>first-lesson:-fix-copyright</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120222/04150617840</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:05:35 PST</pubDate>
<title>Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17154217785/congrats-us-government-youre-scaring-web-businesses-into-moving-out-us.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17154217785/congrats-us-government-youre-scaring-web-businesses-into-moving-out-us.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The federal government has been paying lip service to the idea that it wants to encourage new businesses and startups in the US.  And this is truly important to the economy, as studies have shown that almost all of the net job growth in this country is coming from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/11374517570/if-politicians-pushing-sopapipa-want-to-create-jobs-they-should-support-internet-stop-treating-copyright-companies-as-special.shtml">internet startups</a>.  Thankfully some politicians <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/00260717693/congress-actually-helping-internet-rather-than-mucking-it-up.shtml">recognize this</a>, but the federal government seems to be going in the other direction.  With the JotForm situation unfolding, where the US government <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/18044017773/us-government-suspends-jotformcom-over-user-generated-forms-censorship-regime-expands.shtml">shut down</a> an entire website with no notice or explanation, people are beginning to recognize that the US <i>is not safe</i> for internet startups.
<br /><br />
Lots of folks have been passing around this rather <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597347" target="_blank">reasonable list of activities for US-based websites</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Today's sysadmin todo list:
<br /><br />
0. Get corporate membership with EFF.
<br /><br />
1. Identify all applications with user-generated content.
<br /><br />
2. Move all associated domains to a non-US based registrar.
<br /><br />
3. Migrate DNS, web serving and other critical services to non-US based servers.
<br /><br />
4. Migrate yourself to a non-US controlled country.
<br /><br />
I'm sorry for US sites and users. Your government is hell-bent on turning the internet into a read-only device like TV, easily regulated and controlled. The population will be required to sit quietly and keep their eyes glued on the screen so they don't miss the ads, with any infringers deemed terrorists and pedophiles and thus deserving of summary punishment by DHS squads.
<br /><br />
Hopefully the internet will route around the damaged segment, and the rest of us can continue to enjoy the amazing interactivity it has brought our society.
</i></blockquote>
What's amazing is the "what's the big deal?" attitude the government has taken to all of this.  For most of us, this situation is <i>shocking</i>.  The US government should <i>never</i> be able to flat out shut down a business with no notice or explanation, only to say "sorry" a couple days later.  It's done this <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/17533013176/ice-finally-admits-it-totally-screwed-up-next-time-perhaps-itll-try-due-process.shtml">in the past</a> and insisted that it would be more careful in the future.  So far, it doesn't appear to be living up to that promise.  While these may be "mistakes," the wider impact should be frightening to federal officials.  They're now actively scaring startups away from US businesses at a time when they should be doing exactly the opposite.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17154217785/congrats-us-government-youre-scaring-web-businesses-into-moving-out-us.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17154217785/congrats-us-government-youre-scaring-web-businesses-into-moving-out-us.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17154217785/congrats-us-government-youre-scaring-web-businesses-into-moving-out-us.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>destroying-business</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120216/17154217785</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:54:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Let Politicians Know That Startup Jobs Count Too</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/18110415853/let-politicians-know-that-startup-jobs-count-too.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/18110415853/let-politicians-know-that-startup-jobs-count-too.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A month ago, I wrote about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/02261615462/politicians-innovation-paradox-job-creation.shtml">the paradox of job creation</a> when it comes to politicians.  These days, they all just love to talk about how they're creating jobs.  After all, the news today is all about President Obama's big new <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-08/obama-proposes-cutting-payroll-taxes-in-half.html" target="_blank">"jobs plan."</a>  But, as we've noted, such plans can be tricky.  The easiest way for government officials to "create" jobs is just to make work.  There can be some infrastructure projects that lead to future job growth, but it's way too easy to get sucked into creating jobs by shifting productive uses to unproductive uses.  And, in fact, often the best ways to create real jobs -- through disruptive innovation -- have the horrible first act of killing off jobs.  As an example, moving from a telephone network where human operators handled all the switching to one where there was automatic switching could be seen as destroying the jobs of thousands of operators.  But it also paved the way to millions of new jobs, once the power of an automatic switched network was realized.
<br /><br />
Similarly, when there were plans for "job creation" through investing in broadband, we noticed that most of the plans seemed to really be about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/1317233254.shtml">handing money</a> to big companies, often at the <b>expense</b> of the small startups and next generation of internet companies who actually create sustainable job growth.  As was discussed in the recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml">letter from entrepreneurs</a> to Congress about PROTECT IP, new businesses and startups are really a key in creating jobs.
<br /><br />
So it's great to see that Chris Shipley (who was among those who participated in the PROTECT IP letter) has created a wonderful new site <a href="http://startupjobscount.org/" target="_blank">called StartupJobsCount.org</a>, where she's trying to help show that when we're talking about job creation, startups and entrepreneurs should not be left out of the equation.  She's asking entrepreneurs to step up and say how many jobs they've created in the last five years:
<blockquote><i>
Entrepreneurs are the engine for economic growth and jobs creation. Virtually all of the growth in U.S. jobs has been driven by companies that are less than 5 years old.
<br /><br />
Now, it&rsquo;s time to put some real numbers behind the conventional wisdom! If your company is less than 5 years old and is employing one or more people, stand up and be counted
</i></blockquote>
If you're an entrepreneur, I urge you to stand up and be counted.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/18110415853/let-politicians-know-that-startup-jobs-count-too.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/18110415853/let-politicians-know-that-startup-jobs-count-too.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/18110415853/let-politicians-know-that-startup-jobs-count-too.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-politicians-ignore-us</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110908/18110415853</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:08:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Entrepreneurs Who Create Value vs. Entrepreneurs Who Lock Up Value</title>
<dc:creator>Andy Kessler</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/00441512884/entrepreneurs-who-create-value-vs-entrepreneurs-who-lock-up-value.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/00441512884/entrepreneurs-who-create-value-vs-entrepreneurs-who-lock-up-value.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <i>Andy Kessler is coming out with a new book today, called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eat-People-Unapologetic-Game-Changing-Entrepreneurs/dp/1591843774" target="_blank"></i>Eat People: And Other Unapologetic Rules for Game-Changing Entrepreneurs<i></a>, which I wholeheartedly recommend.  It's billed as "rules for entrepreneurs," but it's more than your typical "rules" book, in that it really discusses many of the key underlying themes we talk about here on Techdirt all the time: things about abundance and scarcity, value vs. price, why zero marginal cost matters, the importance of "free," the nature of disruptive innovation and how value is often created in the tearing down of old monopolistic business models.
<br><br>
 If you haven't read Andy's previous books, well, you should.  But, this latest is typical Andy: packed full of thought-provoking insights, but done in a nice, easy (and quick) to read conversational manner.  Like all of his books, this one made me stop and say "huh, I never quite thought of it that way... but that's exactly right" many times.  
<br><br>
After reading the book, I asked Andy if he'd do a guest post, diving into one point he made about the difference between "political entrepreneurs" and "market entrepreneurs," and he came back with the following wonderful historical example (also discussed in the book) about Cornelius Vanderbilt, who was the Skype or Napster of his day -- figuring out ways to get around the "political entrepreneurs" who offered high prices due to their ability to gain monopolies.  It's a great read, enjoy:
</i>
<br><Br>
While entrepreneurs are out there busting their humps, making something cheaper, expanding its usage, increasing productivity, fending off fierce competition, and hoping to turn a profit along the way, there are those who, through the stroke of a pen, make a killing doing absolutely nothing of value. These "political entrepreneurs" leverage their political power to own something and then overcharge or tax the crap out of the rest of us to use it. Political power instead of competition.
<br><br>
Carlos Slim Helu comes to mind who briefly passed Bill Gates in 2007 and 2010 to become the richest man in the word. He controls 90% of the phone lines in Mexico and 80% of cellular customers. He didn't invent anything. He doesn't drive down prices. There is little innovation. And why should there be? He is milking this franchise for all it's worth. 
<br><br>
Easy money forever. But then again, maybe not. Because for every stroke of the pen, for every piece of legislation, for every paid-off congressman, there now exists a price umbrella that overvalues what he or any political entrepreneur is doing. Real entrepreneurs, "market entrepreneurs," recognize the price-to-value gap and jump in. Ignoring legislation, they innovate, disintermediate, compete, stay up all night coding, and offer something better and cheaper until the market starts to shift. I call home from Mexico using Skype. Eat that Slim!
<br><br>
There's one guy who figured this out before being a market entrepreneur became fashionable.
<br><br>
Cornelius Vanderbilt was born in 1794 on Staten Island, New York. As they say about Dominicans in Major League Baseball: you don't walk off the island, you gotta hit your way off. When he was sixteen, Vanderbilt's mom gave him $100 to clear and plant an eight-acre field. Instead, Vanderbilt bought a two-mast sailboat and started charging for ferrying passengers and goods around New York. It didn't take him long to save enough to get into where the real money was: steamships. The powers that be in the New York legislature had granted a thirty-year monopoly for steamship traffic to Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston, a classic move by political entrepreneurs. Fulton was even able to convince the politicians that he couldn't make money unless he doubled his prices. He set up a fat umbrella for Vanderbilt to shred.
<br><br>
In 1817, hired by a local businessman, Vanderbilt started running, quite illegally mind you, freight and passengers from Elizabeth, New Jersey, to Manhattan. He charged $1 per passenger, well under the $4 monopoly price, until he took most of the business. One dollar was probably below cost, but he also ran the ship's bar, a much higher-margin business! Vanderbilt was threatened with arrest and impounding of his ships so often that Vanderbilt started flying flags from his ship that said "New Jersey Must Be Free." Makes an old Jersey boy like me smile.
<br><br>
At one point, and how's this for twenty-first-century thinking, Vanderbilt lowered the price to zero, nothing, nada. He gave away the trip for free. He not only made money at the bar on the ship, but his wife ran a saloon at the Elizabeth port, right where the passengers conveniently spilled out of Vanderbilt's ship.
<br><br>
Notice, Vanderbilt didn't ask permission, he just did it. There was a $4 price umbrella and he shredded it down to $1. Fulton and Livingston eventually sued and, in 1824, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Gibbons v. Ogden that interstate commerce was federal jurisdiction. So, wink, wink, only Washington could decide who could be political entrepreneurs, not states.
<br><br>
Vanderbilt never slowed down, charging $7 for the trip up the Hudson River to Albany, or $1 for each twenty miles for intermediate stops, well under the monopoly rate charged by the Hudson River Steamboat Association. He employed tubular boilers and coal instead of burning wood, cost-lowering innovations not previously tried by others milking the route. The competition quickly followed. Vanderbilt was eventually bought out by the Association so they could get their high fees. Over time, Vanderbilt ran one hundred ships around Long Island and up and down the coast, making a fortune.
<br><br>
Then he yanked the price down on the New York to San Francisco trip during the California Gold Rush. By going through Nicaragua instead of Panama, he shaved two days off the thirty-five-day trip. He cut prices from $600 to $400. His competitors were paid $500,000 by the Post Office to deliver the mail to California, so Vanderbilt offered to do it for free, and then he cut his passenger price for the trip to $150. Volume surged as every would-be gold miner had only to find $150 worth of gold to make the trip worthwhile.
<br><br>
It didn't take long for Vanderbilt to set his eyes on the lucrative transatlantic route. A political entrepreneur named Edward K. Collins got Congress to subsidize his business to the tune of $3 million and $1,000 a day so he could profitably run the route. Vanderbilt ran more efficient ships and undercut Collins, who was saddled with all sorts of rules and regulations that went along with his subsidy. By 1858, Collins went belly up from losing so much business to Vanderbilt. The only competitor left was Cunard, the subsidized British steamboat company. Vanderbilt cut rates, especially for second- and third-class passengers, and used iron-hulled ships with screw propellers, cutting the trip to nine days, much less than the wooden paddle-wheel boats. <b>Again, lower prices and scale led to innovation, even though common wisdom says the opposite, that is, we need to subsidize unprofitable business (hear that rural broadband?) so they can afford to innovate. Yeah, right.</b>
<br><br>
Again, Vanderbilt didn't ask, he just did it, lowering prices and gaining share, leaving subsidized and monopoly players in his wake.
<br><br>
During the Civil War, Vanderbilt sold most of his vessels to the Union and more or less moved on. Vanderbilt soon started playing with railroads, except this time he was able to buy stock, in the Harlem line that crossed the Harlem River into Manhattan as well as the Hudson line that ran up the east bank of the river all the way up to Albany. This meant he was competing against the old Steamboat Association again, and that he could lower prices on the trip even more!
<br><br>
Lots of stock manipulation charges followed Vanderbilt around, and he almost lost his fortune to a competitor named Daniel Drew, in a fight over the Erie Railroad. The New York Times likened Vanderbilt to medieval robber barons, who as gatekeepers, or actually more of a protection racket, would charge merchants for being allowed to operate on their land without getting robbed and beaten. Robber barons didn't do anything but charge for something they could do. Historian John Steele Gordon did some work trying to find references to medieval robber barons anytime before the 1850 reference to Vanderbilt, and came up empty. It fit a narrative, though, so the Times went with it, but there may never have been such a creature as a robber baron. With that reference, an expression was born that is still being used today.
<br><br>
<b>Vanderbilt and Rockefeller and Carnegie built giant empires by lowering costs, again and again and again, creating economic growth and increasing living standards by constantly lowering the cost for steel or oil or transportation for passengers and freight, by boat or by rail. They had scale on their side, yet they were labeled "robber barons" for amassing huge fortunes. Go figure. Find something that scales and you'll be so lucky as to be vilified in the press and in high school history textbooks.</b>
<br><br>
The real lesson? Those political entrepreneurs who thought they had it made, with a Hudson ferry, a subsidy to carry the mail, the transatlantic franchise and subsidy--they got fat, dumb, and lazy and set themselves up for a market entrepreneur to come in and take them out at the knees. Real market entrepreneurs should never rest on their laurels. Progress is a continuum. What seems like it is risk-free today carries the greatest risk tomorrow.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/00441512884/entrepreneurs-who-create-value-vs-entrepreneurs-who-lock-up-value.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/00441512884/entrepreneurs-who-create-value-vs-entrepreneurs-who-lock-up-value.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/00441512884/entrepreneurs-who-create-value-vs-entrepreneurs-who-lock-up-value.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cornelius-vanderbilt-was-the-skype-of-his-day</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110130/00441512884</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:38:20 PST</pubDate>
<title>No, Giving More Patents To Startups Won't Increase Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/13045312899/no-giving-more-patents-to-startups-wont-increase-innovation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/13045312899/no-giving-more-patents-to-startups-wont-increase-innovation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This really isn't much of a surprise, given earlier statements from both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/14534712848/state-innovation-is-not-defined-state-our-patent-trolls.shtml">President Obama</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110107/03513512571/can-you-speed-up-patent-reviews-while-improving-patent-quality.shtml">Commerce Secretary Locke</a> concerning patents, but it's still a bit disappointing to see that one part of the latest administration plan to jumpstart more entrepreneurship is to <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141285-qstartup-americaq-to-focus-on-mentoring-entrepreneurs-matching-private-investments?utm_campaign=HilliconValley&#038;utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">make it easier for them to get patents</a>.  This is based on a falsehood: that entrepreneurs need patents to build businesses.  This is a claim made up by patent attorneys that has little support in the reality of the trenches in places like Silicon Valley.  While it does depend on the business you're in, good VCs rarely care about patents, since it's rarely the patents that matter.  Entrepreneurship is all about the execution, and that's determined by the team, not some piece of paper.  Instead, by making it easier to get patents, we just end up with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/02101312707/us-patent-office-grants-massively-more-patents-than-ever-before.shtml">more bad patents</a> that make it <i>harder</i> for entrepreneurs to actually execute.  What a shame.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/13045312899/no-giving-more-patents-to-startups-wont-increase-innovation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/13045312899/no-giving-more-patents-to-startups-wont-increase-innovation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/13045312899/no-giving-more-patents-to-startups-wont-increase-innovation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-this-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110131/13045312899</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>As The UK Actively Seeks To Lure Entrepreneurs, Why Does The US Still Make It So Difficult?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100113/2324587741.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100113/2324587741.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reuters has a short article detailing how the UK has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60D01Q20100114?type=technologyNews%3FfeedType%3DRSS&#038;feedName=technologyNews&#038;utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A reuters%2FtechnologyNews %28News %2F US %2F Technology%29" target="_blank">been successful in luring a growing number of foreign entrepreneurs</a> to open up shop (or even move their companies to the UK).  While there are still plenty of foreign entrepreneurs starting or moving companies to the US, it's got little to do with the US government -- which often makes it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0244076368.shtml">quite difficult</a> for foreign entrepreneurs to relocate here.  While, thanks in large part to Brad Feld's activism, there is finally some movement on a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/0156184477.shtml">startup visa</a> concept, the US government still takes a rather hostile view towards foreign entrepreneurs and foreign startups.  With other countries actively courting and welcoming them -- and backing it up with some infrastructural changes, this should be seen as a serious problem for US innovation.  Of course there's a lot more to this issue, and there are certainly institutional reasons why the US has long had a strong startup culture, but we shouldn't merely assume that we can just rest on our laurels, especially as others are ramping up their efforts to attract hot startups.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100113/2324587741.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100113/2324587741.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20100113/2324587741.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>innovation-going-elsewhere</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100113/2324587741</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:18:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0132426885.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0132426885.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the common criticisms we hear around here when we talk about the various business models that are working for more and more musicians these days, is that it's somehow "unfair" or even "wrong" that musicians need to think about business models these days, since they should just be spending all their time creating music.  Of course, this assumes (incorrectly) that the same thing wasn't true in the past as well.  For years, musicians have always teamed up with business managers and music labels for that very reason: to delegate some of the business tasks.  That doesn't change in the modern era.  What does change is that the different opportunities have grown significantly.  Either way, Andrew Dubber (who's always worth paying attention to on these topics) recently put a comment on a blog post on this particular topic that is so good it shouldn't be buried as just a comment, so I'm going to <a href="http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/9-out-of-10-dentists.html?lastPage=true#comment6204582" target="_blank">highlight some of the key parts here</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Musicians deserve more money than they get. Most train harder and for longer than brain surgeons in order to do what they do, and then they earn less than checkout operators for what they do. I strongly believe that more money should go to more musicians more often than it does....
<br /><br />
Making music is not (usually) a job of work. It is a creative act. You don't have the RIGHT to make money from your music. You only have the opportunity.
<br /><br />
If you make music speculatively - that is, you create it in the hopes of making money from it, then you are a music entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurship rules apply.
<br /><br />
You may invest a good deal of energy, effort and expense in your creative ideas. You may make a lot of money. You will probably make none. But nobody OWES you money just because you put the work in.
<br /><br />
If your business model is to grow and sell oranges, then it's no good picking the oranges, then leaving them on the footpath outside your house with a price tag on each one. It doesn't matter how great your oranges are, or how hard you've toiled in your garden. Someone WILL take your oranges. Some will get kicked to the side of the road. Some will get stepped on. But it's not because people are immoral and don't understand or appreciate fruit properly.
<br /><br />
If you wish to be reliably rewarded for your music, then get employed to make music as your job. 
</i></blockquote>
Bingo.  That's the point I've been trying to make for years on this, but said much better than I could express it.  He then goes on to make <i>another</i> point I've tried to make in the past, which is that if you compare the situation today to what it was in the past, there are so many more opportunities to make money.  In the past, it was nearly impossible to make money on music because there were so many gatekeepers.
<blockquote><i>
The odds are stacked against you. History is littered with musicians who are disillusioned, embittered and broke. This was true before the internet just as it's true now. The internet is neither your saviour, nor your enemy.
<br /><br />
Let me make that bit clear: prior to the internet, most people spent NO money on music. If they bought a record in a year, it was a gift for a nephew (and it was usually rubbish). Some people spent a lot of money on music, because it was tied up with cultural things like identity that they were really invested in.
<br /><br />
Back when you needed a record label to just be heard, it was a lottery. The odds were bad, the lottery tickets were expensive, and most of the prizes - if you did happen to win - were just awful. Now you don't need to play that game - but you need to be smart and you need to understand what the rules of the new game are.
<br /><br />
You CAN, of course, get signed to a record label (and that lottery is still in play) but you can also be an entrepreneur. I recommend the latter - but not because it guarantees you money.
<br /><br />
But the simple fact is that you don't become a successful entrepreneur by making things that people will not pay for, insisting that they should, and then complaining that their morals are to blame. They may not share your morals, but that's not even the point.
<br /><br />
It's not their job to understand your needs. It's your job to understand theirs.
<br /><br />
You become a successful entrepreneur by meeting people's needs and wants, solving a problem for them and doing it in a way that allows you to make money.
<br /><br />
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Even if it was true that all the people you wish to target with your art are immoral thieves who you would never invite into your home - why would you insist on trying to change their behaviour as part of your business strategy? 
</i></blockquote>
And he concludes by pointing out (as we have in the past as well) where the real "sense of entitlement" comes from:
<blockquote><i>
You may make great and interesting music, and put on an amazing show with amazing costumes.... But decrying a sense of entitlement among those who won't pay you for what you insist on doing is back to front.
<br /><br />
The people with the weird sense of entitlement are the ones who stamp their feet and say 'look at all this hard work I put in - where's my money?'
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0132426885.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0132426885.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0132426885.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-how-it-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091111/0132426885</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:45:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can You Teach Entrepreneurship?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090813/1829145873.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090813/1829145873.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Paul Kedrosky has a thought-provoking post, discussing how various <a href="http://www.growthology.org/growthology/2009/08/why-dont-more-entrepreneurs-want-to-be-entrepreneurs.html" target="_new">entrepreneurship programs don't seem to be producing more entrepreneurs</a>.  He's finding that when he talks to people in those programs, they're often more interested in participating in the ecosystem around entrepreneurship (such as by becoming a venture capitalist) rather than being entrepreneurs themselves.  To be honest, I don't find this all that surprising.  Most entrepreneurs I know are pretty driven to start a company <i>now</i> and not wait around for however long it takes to go through a schooling program.  If I didn't have the opportunity to tack on business school right after undergrad (unlike most b-schoolers), I doubt I would have gone back (and I spent way too much time in business school talking to others trying to convince them to start businesses).  I don't think entrepreneurship programs are a bad thing, per se, but I'd imagine the real help is in assisting those already in the process of building a business, rather than studying <i>to be</i> entrepreneurs.  Also, while Paul talks about the importance of "creating more entrepreneurs," I'm not sure that makes sense.  I think the people who are meant to be entrepreneurs become entrepreneurs.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090813/1829145873.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090813/1829145873.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090813/1829145873.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maybe...-but-not-always</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090813/1829145873</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:15:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Congrats, RIAA: Chilling Effects Have Killed Interest In New Digital Music Startups</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/1216405637.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/1216405637.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noticed that pretty much every single new and innovative digital music startup that pops up eventually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0011185272.shtml">gets sued</a> by the record labels.  The labels seem to view this as a part of basic negotiations -- and, in fact, many of the lawsuits have ended in partnership/equity deals.  But, those deals tend to be suffocating.  Given that (likelihood of getting sued or getting a deal that makes a profitable business impossible), is it any wonder that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10293815-56.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-5" target="_new">entrepreneurs are shying away from any sort of digital music startup these days</a>, in favor of opportunities with no obsolete gatekeepers demanding huge chunks of whatever revenue they might one day make?
<br /><br />
At a time when the recording industry needs innovative startups more than anything else, the record labels and their oppressive lawsuits and deal terms have basically scared off exactly the people who create those businesses.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/1216405637.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/1216405637.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/1216405637.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-work!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090723/1216405637</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>What Obama Should Do To Get The Entrepreneurial Viewpoint</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0048512786.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0048512786.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two contrasting articles crossed my desktop this weekend, both about how President-Elect Barack Obama is likely to govern.  The first, by Mark Cuban, criticizes Obama for the <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2008/11/08/pe-obamas-1st-big-mistake/">list of economic advisers</a> that Obama chose to consult concerning his plans to take on the economic downturn.  Cuban, correctly, worries about who is missing from that list:
<blockquote><i>
Notice anything missing?
<br /><br />
Not a single entrepreneur. Yes Warren Buffett started a business, but he will be the first to tell you that he "doesn't do start ups". Which means there isn't a single person advising PE Obama that we know of that knows that its like to start and run a business in this or any economic climate. That's a huge problem.
</i></blockquote>
I absolutely agree.  It is the entrepreneurial spirit that is needed right now.  But, at the same time, it makes you wonder just how Obama would have accomplished this.  Any one or two entrepreneurs are unlikely to do a really good job representing all entrepreneurs.  Entrepreneurs, for the most part, don't all view things the same way, and there's no real organization of entrepreneurs.  The reason entrepreneurs become entrepreneurs is often that they see their own way of doing things and don't want to be locked up by convention.  So, while it is worrisome that there aren't any entrepreneur-types on the list, I'm not sure I'd be that much more comfortable with a few entrepreneurs representing the interests of all entrepreneurs either.
<br /><br />
That brings us to the second article.  It's by David Carr in the NY Times, and looks at how Obama's campaign <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html?partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss" target="_new">ran like an entrepreneurial startup itself</a>, leveraging the internet and new technologies to do a complete end-run around much bigger and more well-known "corporate brands" in the political space.  And it wonders if Obama will continue to use those tools to govern as well.
<br /><br />
So, at the very least, one could argue that Obama, himself, is something of an entrepreneur, but more importantly, one would hope that Obama does, in fact, continue to leverage the internet to hear from folks -- and is actually willing to listen and take suggestions seriously.  Why not create an economic roundtable of sorts online that lets more people weigh in?  Let ideas in the mix bubble up to the top using ratings systems (and maybe some White House moderators) and contribute them to the mix.  If someone has a particularly good suggestion, why not invite them to a meeting with those "big shot" economic advisers as well?  It doesn't mean that every hare-brained scheme needs to be listened to, but if there's a good way to allow the best ideas to bubble up and get recognition, it could be quite a powerful new way to govern.  To some extent, there's already some indication that this is where things are headed with the transition website <a href="http://change.gov/">Change.gov</a>, but it remains to be seen if that's just a Presidential suggestion box... or something a lot more powerful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0048512786.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0048512786.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/0048512786.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>we're-about-to-find-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081110/0048512786</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:46:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Silicon Valley Isn't Ignoring China; It's Looking For The Opportunity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0123221908.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0123221908.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Echoing some of <a href="http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/07/silicon-valleys.html">Rebecca McKinnon's claims</a> that we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0216021848.shtml">discussed</a> recently, VentureBeat is running an OpEd piece by Rebecca A. Fannin, claiming that <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2008/08/03/silicon-valley-if-we-ignore-china-will-it-go-away/" target="_new">Silicon Valley has its head in the sand about the rising "threat" of competition in China</a>.  While there certainly may be some folks who aren't paying attention to China, my take on the situation is quite different.
<br /><br />
Silicon Valley, as a broad generalization, doesn't worry about "threats."  Instead, it tries to treat them all as opportunities.  So, if Fannin is upset to see folks focusing on Twitter and the iPhone rather than the fact that China is building up a healthy and rapidly innovating tech economy, she may be focusing on the wrong thing.  It does little to "fret" about the next big threat.  There are <i>always</i> people warning about this or that big threat.  A dozen years ago, it was how Japan was going to take over the tech industry.  That didn't exactly happen.  Sitting around and worrying about a threat doesn't make much sense.
<br /><br />
Instead, it makes sense to pay attention to opportunities.  And, many, many, many people in Silicon Valley view China as a huge opportunity.  And, yes, new companies and technologies will flow out of China -- and it will present formidable competition -- but, again, competition isn't a real <i>threat</i>, it's an opportunity to do something even better and more innovative.  So, I'd disagree with the assertion that Silicon Valley has its head in the sand about the rise of Chinese innovation.  We're just focusing on how to make them opportunities.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0123221908.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0123221908.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0123221908.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>looking-for-opportunities,-not-threats</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080806/0123221908</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:35:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Keeping The Benevolent Dictators Of Silicon Valley Honest</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0216021848.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0216021848.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I don't think I've ever had more people send me a single blog post than a blog post from earlier this week by Rebecca MacKinnon <a href="http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/07/silicon-valleys.html" target="_new">discussing her worries about "Silicon Valley's benevolent dictators."</a>  It's an interesting read that brings up some excellent points.  It starts off pointing out the rather insular view many folks have in Silicon Valley about "the rest of the world" and the sort of hubris that comes out of the Valley on a regular basis.  That, of course, is nothing new, and is a criticism that has been leveled at Valley inhabitants for many, many years.  And, indeed, there is a "clubby" nature to Silicon Valley at times, that has both good and bad sides to it.
<br /><br />
MacKinnon points out, correctly, that Silicon Valley-ites also tend to put blind faith into the idea that technology = freedom, and freedom = good, in a rather libertarian sense.  Again, that's been said before.  But then she points out something of a contradiction in all of this libertarianism, by noting that in fighting against any government regulation while putting all our faith in technology, we actually end up with a system of "benevolent dictators" made up of the folks who control the technology we put our faith in.  That is, she worries that in rejecting government regulation, we've approved a defacto dictatorship in the form of the companies we put our trust in.  In some sense, this is <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0938321458.shtml">channelling Jonathan Zittrain's pessimism</a> about what happens when those benevolent dictators turn away from benevolence.
<br /><br />
Basically, what both MacKinnon and Zittrain are pointing out is that technology is just a tool.  It can be used for good or for bad purposes, and it's part of Silicon Valley's hubris to assume that good will automatically win out in the end.  That is, we've been mostly blessed, because the people putting such tools into practice are doing it for good (benevolent) reasons, but there's always a risk that someone else will do something much worse with it.  It's a fantastic point, and one well worth thinking about, but I think the assumptions are a little bit wrong.
<br /><br />
It's <i>not</i> necessarily a blind faith that "technology" and "capitalism" are flat out "good," but more a recognition that an expanding market <i>tends</i> to open more opportunities for everyone, and the end result of that expansion is <i>good</i> at a macro level.  Capitalism tends to remove the barriers for growth, while technology (or, more specifically following Paul Romer's <a href="http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/EconomicGrowth.html">thesis</a>, "ideas") are what then creates that growth.  Capitalism is about removing the barriers, and technology and ideas are about <i>enabling</i> that growth.  That doesn't mean that there aren't downsides to both -- but the net gain does appear.  And, one thing that has become incredibly clear throughout history is that it's nearly impossible to take away that net gain once it appears.  And, conversely, asking the government to create those net gains instead almost always fails, due to the difficulty in accurately regulating a market.
<br /><br />
In other words, by removing the barriers and enabling the potential, you've almost guaranteed that when someone tries to use the tools for less-than-benevolent reasons, it only opens up strong demand for someone else to provide the equivalent (or better) in a benevolent way again.  And, at the same time, in asking the gov't to manage the benevolence, you almost guarantee less opportunities to actually provide good tools, because you've added hurdles they need to jump through.  Yes, there can be bumps in the road -- and, no, it's not always a fun process along the way.  But enabling for growth is not blind faith.  And, there are plenty of checks and balances in place that should these "benevolent dictators" turn authoritarian instead, the end result (or "revolt" as the case may be) can often be strong enough to deal with it.
<br /><br />
So, yes, there may be some benevolent dictators in Silicon Valley -- but they'd be hard pressed to successfully ditch that benevolence without paying a huge price.
<br /><br />
Related to this, I've recently been doing a presentation for various corporate execs (almost all from outside the US) on "What Makes Silicon Valley Silicon Valley."  It's probably my favorite presentation, because it's fun and it usually challenges a lot of the assumptions many people have about why Silicon Valley has been so successful for so long -- that is, while it discusses some of the "common" reasons, it focuses more attention on the hidden, unexpected and accidental reasons for why Silicon Valley became what it did.  
<br /><br />
The last time I gave it, I ended up getting into a huge discussion with some European execs who pointed out that many of the explanations seem to run almost entirely counter to what many countries who try to set up their "own" Silicon Valley think.  That is, many folks look at Silicon Valley and try to replicate the outward manifestations (a good university, some venture capitalists) and miss the underlying details that create the real culture of Silicon Valley, because they almost seem counterintuitive.  And the most basic element of this is enabling the free exchange of ideas (that engine for growth).  Instead of doing that, most focus on <i>protecting</i> ideas and limiting that free exchange, falsely believing that hoarding information beats sharing information (even with competitors).
<br /><br />
So, what happens is that other countries set up their own Silicon Valleys by focusing on protectionism (greater intellectual property rules, non-competes, hugely funded labs), and ignore the power of the cross pollination of ideas and people throughout Silicon Valley, which make it that much more difficult for any single company to abuse the trust of the people they serve.  Should any company turn away from benevolence, that openness almost guarantees a more open competitor shows up in return (sometimes with the same employees from the older company).  That openness drives innovation, but also keeps these benevolent dictators honest.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0216021848.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0216021848.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0216021848.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-that-any-way-to-build-an-internet?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080731/0216021848</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:37:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>You Don't Create A Silicon Valley By Government Fiat</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071002/023137.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071002/023137.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two separate articles came out in two separate newspapers based 3,000 miles away from each other this past weekend -- but together they demonstrate exactly why so many places have had difficulty creating their own, local versions of "Silicon Valley."  Especially during the dot com bubble, it seemed like every country and every state wanted to create some area that was a "local" Silicon Valley.  There were silicon islands and silicon prairies and silicon alleys and silicon mountains... and almost all of them went nowhere.  An article in the San Francisco Chronicle talks about <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/30/MNDTSEMSJ.DTL&#038;feed=rss.business">how the original Silicon Valley was created</a>, through a mixture of strong educational institutions, easy flow of capital and a culture that focused on risk, experimentation, entrepreneurship -- and the free flow of ideas.  While the government played a big role in early Silicon Valley culture, it was as a customer, not as the creator of the culture.  Contrast that to the story in the Washington Post about how Prince William County <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001267_pf.html">set out to create a high tech hub</a>, which is still struggling to get much traction in the high tech world.  Rather than paving the way for those critical components to form, the county simply set aside some land and (it appears) some marketing efforts to promote the county as a good place for high tech companies.  That seems to be about all that many other "silicon somethings" did in the past decade as well -- forgetting that there's a lot more involved in creating a true high tech hub.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071002/023137.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071002/023137.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071002/023137.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>takes-a-bit-more-than-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071002/023137</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>