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

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

Here's a link to a fun video by people endorsing Ed Lee for Mayor of San Francisco:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbdd_Fasz0k 
Here's a TechCrunch article discussing the video:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/25/ron-conway-marissa-mayer-mc-hammer-and-others-endorse-sf-mayoral-candidate-ed-lee-in-amazingly-silly-video/.  According to the article, the video was financed by Ron Conway and Sean Parker, and features Brian Wilson of the SF Giants, former SF 49er Ronnie Lott, will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas and former SF mayor Willie Brown, among others.Note:  this is not an endorsement of Ed Lee, just a link to a fun political video.

The November 2011 edition of Vanity Fair magazine contains a Michael Lewis article entitled "California and Bust."  Here's a link:  http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111.  In this article, Mr. Lewis describes the dismal financial condition of California, both at the state and local level.  To me, it highlights the difficulties we face as a state, and how difficult it will be to change the situation.  The article also introduces me to a term that I'm going to try to incorporate into my vocabulary: lizard-brained.

In my view, the Michael Lewis article echoes the article "California reelin'" which appeared in the Economist in March 2011. Here's a link:  http://www.economist.com/node/18359882.  The Economist article examines some specific causes of the problems that now exist in California and is an interesting read.