Posts from Patents

Some Stats On Yesterday's Post

AVC on June 1, 2011:

Total Unique Visitors: 45,055 (google analytics)

Total Visits: 47,633 (google analytics)

Total Page Views: 54,105 (google analytics)

Total Comments on AVC: 415 (disqus)

Total Comments on Hacker News: 175

Total Social Media Mentions: 1,453 (disqus)

Top Refers: Hacker News (18,651 visits) and Twitter (~12,000 visits)

It was a big day, I think the biggest in the history of this blog. It may take me a day or two to make it through all of the comments, but I will.

Clearly this is a hot topic. It's got me hot and it's got a few others hot too. That's a good thing. It's clear that we need to do more to fix the software patents mess and the reaction to yesterday's post is a strong signal to me on that front.

#VC & Technology#Web/Tech

Public Policy and Venture Capital

I did a "Room For Debate" on the New York Times yesterday with Ken Auletta and John Markoff. Here's the first part and here's the second part. The topic was Google; are they too powerful and if so, what the government should do about it.

I said this about anti-trust efforts in technology:

I am not big fan of governmental intervention in technology markets.
Technology moves very rapidly and one decade’s dominant monopoly is the
next decade’s fading giant.

I would prefer our government focus on creating the right
environment for innovation and new technology development so that the
next Google can come along and change the game again. Things like
immigration reform (the start-up visa movement), patent reform
(elimination of software patents), net neutrality and open spectrum are
all much more important than filing an antitrust case against Google.

No sooner than when I wrote those words I found out about another public policy issue that impacts the technology startup world.

William Carleton pointed out to me yesterday on this blog, in the comments, that Senator Dodd's financial system reform bill contains two provisions that will be very harmful to startups. If passed as currently drafted, the bill calls for:

(1) increasing the threshold for accredited investors

(2) ending the federal preemption of "all accredited" offerings, so
that states would be permitted to regulate such offerings, even if they
meet federal requirements under Rule 506 of Reg D.

I'm not a security lawyer and I hope we get some discussion of these two points from security lawyers in the comments, but both of these seem wrong headed to me.

The angel funding mechanism is potentially the single most important funding mechanism in startup land. Most entrepreneurs get their first real investments from angels, not VCs. If you lower the amount of angel capital in startup land, you'll end up lowering the number of entrepreneurs who can get their projects off the ground.

So now there's one more thing we all have to start calling Washington about. I'm going to call my representatives about this. You might want to do the same. And while you have them on the phone, tell them we also want their support on the startup visa movement, elimination of software patents, net neutrality, and open spectrum. That seems like a lot to ask, but this stuff is important and getting more so.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
#VC & Technology