The technology industry's opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act has been very visible and vocal.  The NY Times story "A Political Coming of Age for the Tech Industry" is an interesting read on how technology firms, including Google, Wikipedia and Facebook, have lead efforts opposing SOPA.  Here's the link:   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/technology/web-wide-protest-over-two-antipiracy-bills.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

California Governor Jerry Brown is confronted with an estimated budget shortfall of up to $13 billion, and limited tools to eliminate that shortfall.  His solution: prepare a balanced budget that includes the impact of proposed tax increases, and if the tax increases aren't passed automatic spending cuts will occur.  As one can imagine, the proposal has met with considerable mixed response.  The LA Times essentially agrees that more revenues are needed and calls for lawmakers to "come to the table with an open mind and a willingness to compromise."  An opinion column in the Orange County Register argues that Governor Brown's proposal to increase the sales tax and to raise income tax rates on the top earners in California are not the solution, but are a continuation of California's "failed management of existing resources and poor understanding of the dynamics of state revenue."  In my view, this is a very complex problem that is compounded by a complex legal framework that no longer works in California.

Here's a link to a Bloomberg article on the issue:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/brown-to-seek-more-automatic-budget-cuts-if-california-tax-increase-fails.html


Here's the link to the LA Times piece:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-brown-20111209,0,4157624.story


Here's a link to the Orange County Register piece:  http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/state-330661-income-tax.html

There's a bill working its way through Congress which will loosen the rules requiring private companies to publicly disclose their finances.  Currently, once a private company reaches 500 shareholders, the company must begin to publicly disclose its financial and operating information, similar to a public company.  This rule has been around for many years, but is now under scrutiny as companies like Google, Facebook and Zynga reach this threshold.  These companies grant employees stock options, and under the existing rule the employees receiving these stock options are considered to be shareholders.  Thus as a private company grows and grants options to its employees, it may run afoul of the 500 shareholder rule and be forced to become a public company.

The legislation currently being proposed raises the 500 shareholder limit to 2000 shareholders.  Accredited (wealthy) investors and employees receiving options will count against this limit.

Here are some links to this story:
The Atlantic Wire:  http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/11/lawmakers-sponsoring-very-facebook-friendly-bill/44748/
Fortune Term Sheet:  
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/08/ending-the-500-shareholder-rule/


The original purpose of the 500 shareholder rule was to force a company with 500 or more shareholders to publicly disclose its financials in order to provide the shareholders with information that they otherwise wouldn't have.  The basic tenets of the securities laws are disclosure and protection.  Accredited investors are deemed to be sophisticated and in need of less protection.  But employees and investors who are not accredited investors deserve disclosure and protection, which in my view should be purpose of the 500 shareholder rule.   Therefore I would argue that the 500 shareholder limit should remain, but accredited investors should be exempt from the rule.

Brad Feld, a Managing Director at Foundry Group in Boulder, Colorado, has an insightful posting on Patent Trolls on his blog FeldThoughts.  Here's the link:  http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2011/11/another-day-another-patent-troll.html. Also, some of the comments posted to his blog present some interesting ideas for reform.

In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle "Google lawyer: Why the patent system is broken," Google's patent counsel discusses why he believes the system is broken.  Here's the link:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/06/BUQP1LQN3V.DTL


In an article by Timothy B. Lee on ars technica, he expands on the San Francisco Chronicle and offers some poignant insights on the matter.  Here's the link:  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/google-microsoft-uses-patents-when-products-stop-succeeding.ars