Smart policy and the removal of economic barriers have driven the amazing development of the Indian economy over the past few decades. Yet, today, that progress is threatened by new obstacles being erected by the Indian government – obstacles that could, ironically, isolate India from the benefits of participating in the global market. If left unchecked, other nations could mimic the Indian approach, injecting even more uncertainty into the fragile calculus of the global economy.
When a corporate CEO characterizes a competitor as having “a massive IPO, dominance in the marketplace, and a blank slate from policy makers to do practically anything they please,” you can bet on two things: first, the CEO is losing the race for consumer loyalty and support; and second, the CEO is hoping the government will knee-cap his competitor to make the race more “fair.”
That’s what Nextag CEO Jeffrey Katz says about Google in today’s Wall Street Journal. You can almost hear him say, Google ate my homework.
It’s hard to tell who will be the biggest loser in the aftermath of possibly the most disastrous Internet Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history – Facebook or Morgan Stanley.
With an IPO price of $38, the stock rose to $45 before plummeting as low as $26.44. Wall Street's rejection of Facebook's valuation continued this week as the renowned sell-side firm of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. initiated coverage with an "underperform" rating and a $25 price target.
One thing is for sure, Facebook’s problems are only just beginning. There are now multiple shareholder lawsuits against Facebook and their investment bank. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating NASDAQ’s problems with reliably executing trades for investors and now the Senate Banking Committee has launched its own probe.
Technology has transformed many aspects of modern life, including how many people communicate, learn, work, and play. From distance learning to telecommuting, technology affords people increased convenience and productivity. But for persons with disabilities, technology offers much more than that—it also allows for a greater degree of independence and new ways to communicate.
The development of mobile accessibility (m-enabling) technologies has “cut the cord” on many of these life-changing benefits, allowing people to enjoy them on the move. Tools such as assistive mobile apps, handsets, web services and other cutting-edge wireless technologies provide access to numerous opportunities that were once considered unattainable for those with disabilities. These m-enabling technologies empower users in unprecedented ways, enhancing the lives of 54 million Americans who live with disabilities.
In the age of Onstar, smartphones and GPS tracking devices, we are more effective than ever at tracking people. But the line between a convenient tool and an unreasonable search has become increasingly nebulous.
No one wants their every move surreptitiously monitored without permission – whether it be law enforcement, a spurned partner, or a nefarious stranger keeping tabs on us. Given the legal ambiguities associated with modern technology, we must update and clarify the law.
Although the Supreme Court ruled attaching a GPS device to a person’s car without their knowledge constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, there are no rules governing the use of geolocation information obtained from other types of devices.
In February 2009 President Obama appointed me to chair the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. Our job was to prevent fraud and waste in the multi-billion dollar economic stimulus program and to establish a public website that would bring an unprecedented level of transparency to stimulus spending. Now, more than three years later, it’s clear that the Recovery Board and its oversight partners have kept fraud and waste at record lows. At the same time, Americans can easily track how their stimulus tax dollars are being spent on the Board’s website, Recovery.gov.
Congress now needs to consider how the lessons of the Recovery program can be applied to all of government spending. In June of 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced bipartisan legislation entitled the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, or DATA Act, to accomplish this goal. On April 25th the House passed the DATA Act unanimously. It is time for the Senate to move quickly to do the same.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg turned 28 this week. When he sat in his dorm room at Harvard eight years ago, cooking up what later became the world’s largest social network, Zuckerberg envisioned a product that would connect friends to one another across the world. He probably never imagined Facebook would become a forum for Saudi clerics to encourage their followers to crush demonstrators’ skulls or beat their wives.
Sadly, that’s what clerics are doing, and only a small taste of what we found during a six-month study of Saudi social media between January 1 and June 30, 2011. With the help of ConStrat, a Washington-based technology and analytics company, we collected and analyzed more than 40,000 social media entries in both English and Arabic.
Despite the clerics’ historical opposition to modern technology, they’re increasingly gravitating towards it. Here are five of the Saudi clerics’ most politically incorrect messages that you (probably) wouldn’t want your religious leaders repeating.
Despite earnest efforts by Congress to address it, our nation’s patent system has become a disincentive to innovation, at least in the tech industries. The evidence: the patent wars plaguing the tech world.
Day after day one company sues another, then that company turns around and sues the first, or a third. Meanwhile, every major technology company is in a race to build its defensives by stockpiling patents, spending in the millions and billions in order to stay on a level playing field with its competitors. Moreover, patent trolls are emerging on the flanks – continually acquiring patents with the sole aim of strong-arming companies into forking over licensing fees.
There is no question the state of patent policy in the United States has gotten seriously off the rails, in ways that endanger the long-term well being of our economic and technological development. To understand what has happened, it is important to look to the past.
We are very proud of our legislation designed to protect the online privacy of the millions of internet users in our country. The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) was created to prevent employers, schools and universities from demanding usernames and passwords from current employees and students, or prospective ones. This applies to websites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, and also protects email and any other personal user generated content. Unfortunately, there have been several instances of such demands, and the implications on personal privacy are worrisome.
With few protections, and virtually no distinction between what is private versus what is public, many people are being required to divulge their personal passwords and logon information to obtain employment or enroll in a university and its sports programs. That lack of clarity puts those individuals in a position where they either have to give up their private information, or they risk their job, potential job, enrollment or involvement in sports programs. That is unacceptable in a free society.
In recent years, the Internet search giant Google has been suffering from a bunch of legal headaches. First, Oracle or American Society of Media Photographers sued the giant for patent and copyright infringements. Then later it was confronted with number of antitrust probes into its acquisition of companies. Now the search powerhouse faces investigations into violation of the EU and U.S. competition rules for abusing its dominant position on two continents in parallel. The dominant market position is illegal neither according to the EU rules on competition and nor according to the US antitrust law.
What is unlawful is the abuse of such position aiming to stifle the competition. But does Google really carry on a predatory business?