Considered one of the greatest boxers of all time, "Sugar" Ray Robinson punched far above his fighting weight. Can the same be said about the computer industry? Doubtful.
Each week, it seems, brings fresh evidence of the increasing intersection between the worlds of high technology and politics. Yet it's also clear that the tech business sector commands less influence with our political class than its size might suggest.
The reasons? I've heard several, but maybe the most persuasive is that Silicon Valley, for most of its history, wanted as little to do with Washington, D.C., as possible. And now it's got to play catch-up in a hurry.
Clearly, the computer industry's political instincts are a lot sharper than they were a decade ago.
The Justice Department antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft was the first wakeup call. The lesson for Microsoft and its rivals was the value of having friends in high places--or at the very least, politicians that companies could count on in the clutch.
Then there was a California initiative called Proposition 211. Led by tort attorney Bill Lerach, that proposal would have made shareholder lawsuits easier to lob at companies when earnings fell short of expectations or stock prices took a tumble.
Hear Charles Cooper talk about the overlapping worlds of tech and politics.
So it was that the tech industry raised more than $30 million to get its message through to voters, who overwhelmingly rejected the initiative by a 75 to 25 margin.
That defeat opened more eyes--and wallets. Just compare: in 1990, IT companies ranked 53rd among the 80 industries making political contributions. Ten years later, they ranked No. 8.
But while Silicon Valley may no longer keep the political world at arm's length, why doesn't a multibillion dollar industry have more political muscle than it does?
Clearly, with an agenda that ranges from patent reform to Net neutrality, immigration reform, drug patents and copyright enforcement in other countries, there's no shortage of political issues impacting the future of the tech business.
At first blush, this should be a no-brainer. When major political decisions are undertaken, the technology industry should be able to demand a seat at the political table. Too often, the industry's on the outside looking in.
In part, that's due to the IT industry's traditional reluctance to push Uncle Sam too hard. Tech business doesn't have a history of being regulated, or even of working with the big federal agencies (except when it comes to the birth of the Internet).
Video:
Intel and AMD's benchmark battle
ZDNet editors Dan Farber and David Berlind discuss a range of tech topics, including Intel and AMD's opposing benchmark results.
That hasn't done much for the interests of average computer users. To wit, the lousy record making broadband technology available to the citizenry of this country.
Why is it that the likes of Japan, Korea, Scandinavia and even France can provide more megabits to their citizens than the U.S. does? And those countries have better cell phone service, too, which is one reason governments there required better service for customers.
Earlier this week, at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, Calif., I listened to Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz take a stab at the question. Schwartz mentioned with approval the effectiveness of national broadband policies in other countries. But he refused to take the seemingly logical next step and say this is something the U.S. should consider.
Why straddle the fence?
Because, said Schwartz, he was afraid of what might happen next.
That's either a cop-out or a contradiction--maybe both.
This country got universal electrical service because the government intervened. Nobody was going to get rich running wires across Nebraska. Nobody was going to get rich building an airport in Des Moines, Iowa. Nobody was going to get rich running a freeway the length of the Atlantic seaboard. The government had to get involved.
For Schwartz, it's not about getting 100 megabits into his house. He's more interested in getting America to better understand its competitive position and take action on related issues such as immigration and the state of education. He doesn't want government to force technology standards.
Do things need to reach that extreme? Schwartz is one of the more insightful CEOs I've met, but he's kidding himself if he thinks vague and anodyne prescriptions will be enough.
Jim Cicconi, formerly a senior official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, offers a different take. Cicconi, who nowadays acts as a government liason for AT&T, says the absence of a national broadband policy has put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.
I think that's closer to the truth. So what should be done?
That's the tough one.
Maybe something like the national highway bill in the 1950s, which resulted in the building of a vast and modern transportation infrastructure? But this isn't only a question of bigger conduits reaching people faster. It's also about the underlying backbone and all that involves.
If technologists don't want to leave big decisions to the politicians, they'll need to get their hands dirty in the muck and grime of politics. But so far, I just don't see much fire in their belly for a fight.
Biography Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
For whatever reason, many tech companies that exist in North America consider Canada to be a "branch plant" of the USA. The reality that the political and legal systems are different, and that better tech-friendly laws in Canada could help their work in the USA, seems to be being ignored thus far. Fighting anti-technology and anti-innovation laws, such as information/mental process patents, anti-circumvention legislation or other government mandates on behalf of the technology hostile incumbent content industries, would be much easier if Canadians were more actively involved and supported.
Ever use the phrase "computer geek" lately? This is a culture issue. Congressmen and voters don't think that they have any obligation to understand technology. That's what the geeks do when they aren't getting their lunch money stolen.
Don't threaten me! Go send a serious message to your congressman. ;)
However, the current government is run by U.S. oil monopolies, and aside from making sure the net works to sell oil to people at gas stations, they quite simply don't give a damn about U.S. high tech.
Bare in mind, the current government has spent the majority of it's 'high tech policy' discussions looking to demand high tech spy on people and attacking high tech for doing business in China.
The current government doesn't like high tech other than for the purposes of trying to make SV spy on people.
Don't blame high-tech for being inactive in the federal government (i.e., bribing politicians), we have a government that simply does not believe in high tech beyond its uses for totalitarian purposes.
--------EXCERPT "I think that's closer to the truth. So what should be done?
That's the tough one.
Maybe something like the national highway bill in the 1950s, which resulted in the building of a vast and modern transportation infrastructure? But this isn't only a question of bigger conduits reaching people faster. It's also about the underlying backbone and all that involves.
If technologists don't want to leave big decisions to the politicians, they'll need to get their hands dirty in the muck and grime of politics. But so far, I just don't see much fire in their belly for a fight." --------
...Here's my rant Unfortunately, I agree. If we as technologists don't do something, US Administration will.
We should be competing for better technologies... pushing each other further and further. We should be focusing on integration, not creating proprietary technologies in the name of profit. Compete for the sake of competition, is that not where we receive the most benefit?
Do we want convergence, or regulation??? Integration or separation? Take your pick.
Other countries are far more open-minded about having the government intervene in economic and social (but not religious) areas. That's why they have more unified and robust broadband and cellular networks. Americans' irrational mistrust of government is leading to a decline in competitiveness, in everything from education to broadband. Wake up and smell the coffee. Corporations only want to get rich (sometimes just for management, too). The common good is often not a private good. Fear the government all you want. It's still the closest thing we have to national interest (not shareholders interest).
Chinese authorities have reportedly taken iPads from a third-party retailer, a move apparently brought on by Apple's continued refusal to honor a trademark for the iPad name owned by a Chinese manufacturer.
NY professor believes that a word-based algorithm can help bring together those who believe, with one glimpse, that they have found and lost the love of their lives.
After a higher-than-expected fourth quarter, the video subscription service unburdens itself of a pending yearlong class action suit and settles for $9 million.
Along with green-lighting Google's buy of Motorola, the Justice Department today OKs an Apple-Microsoft-RIM partnership deal to buy Nortel patents, and Apple's plan to acquire Novell patents.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
This week, we pass around Sony's new PlayStation Vita for some hands-on testing, check out HP's newest Beats Audio laptop, and debate the best and worst Valentine's Day gadget gifts.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
Canadians should check out:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://cluecan.ca/policy" target="_newWindow">http://cluecan.ca/policy</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/" target="_newWindow">http://www.digital-copyright.ca/</a>
Ever use the phrase "computer geek" lately? This is a culture issue. Congressmen and voters don't think that they have any obligation to understand technology. That's what the geeks do when they aren't getting their lunch money stolen.
Don't threaten me! Go send a serious message to your congressman. ;)
However, the current government is run by U.S. oil monopolies, and aside from making sure the net works to sell oil to people at gas stations, they quite simply don't give a damn about U.S. high tech.
Bare in mind, the current government has spent the majority of it's 'high tech policy' discussions looking to demand high tech spy on people and attacking high tech for doing business in China.
The current government doesn't like high tech other than for the purposes of trying to make SV spy on people.
Don't blame high-tech for being inactive in the federal government (i.e., bribing politicians), we have a government that simply does not believe in high tech beyond its uses for totalitarian purposes.
"I think that's closer to the truth. So what should be done?
That's the tough one.
Maybe something like the national highway bill in the 1950s, which resulted in the building of a vast and modern transportation infrastructure? But this isn't only a question of bigger conduits reaching people faster. It's also about the underlying backbone and all that involves.
If technologists don't want to leave big decisions to the politicians, they'll need to get their hands dirty in the muck and grime of politics. But so far, I just don't see much fire in their belly for a fight."
--------
...Here's my rant
Unfortunately, I agree. If we as technologists don't do something, US Administration will.
We should be competing for better technologies... pushing each other further and further. We should be focusing on integration, not creating proprietary technologies in the name of profit. Compete for the sake of competition, is that not where we receive the most benefit?
Do we want convergence, or regulation??? Integration or separation? Take your pick.
Thanks for listening 
- Jerry Merfeld