What were employees are now business entrepreneurs ---as with INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS they do not appear on unemployment data when that start up fails. 4.7% unemployment represents how many people are receiving unemployment benefits. Bush/Obama era has seen over 40-60% of jobs directed at these two categories and indeed they do not show as unemployed. Even if 60% labor participation data is correct---we must understand that cyclical temporary business startups bring that 60% labor participation down to maybe 30-40%. As well, if these startups do involve hiring workers those workers are as well thrown into cyclical unemployment but do not appear on Federal unemployment data because they are mostly ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Corporate universities and startup structures are both allowing global corporations to have free R and D with citizens/students being free labor with very little future employment value for WE THE PEOPLE 99%.
Why do 9 out of 10 startups fail?
Sromona Bhattacharyya , 16 October 2016
Anyone who is even remotely associated with the startup world knows the phrase, “nine out of ten startup fail” by heart. Every time a venture fails, an analysis, or a post-mortem if you may, needs to be conducted for us to find out what really went wrong. So while there are thousands of success stories to look up to, there are a lot more failures to learn from, especially in order try and avoid the same mistakes.
Although there can be a myriad of factors resulting in a startup failure, we will breakdown the causes and present the major ones that might drag your company to doom.
Running out of cash
Dearth of cash is probably the number one official reason for a startup death. There can be hundreds of reasons as to why they run out of cash. For example, they may not have budgeted properly, or their calculations for the time required to build from their funding goes wrong, or they may have simply ended up having a high burn rate. So when cash is burning fast, it’s just a matter of time that you will lose it all before you start getting transactions to attract investment.
Not a unique product According to research a whopping 42 percent of the startups fail because their products are not needed in the market. Startups succeed because they are solving a pertinent problem experienced by their customers. With the complexity of the world increasing, there are more problems that need to be addressed each day. If your product does not offer a solution that is big and better that what’s already out there, then the chances of it succeeding is slim to none.
The chances of your venture getting outcompeted by the others in the market is very high. Competitors that are also playing in the same field as yours will not give up easily. A combination of factors such as expertise, product and funding can lead to one startup’s success and the other’s loss.
It’s not always the external factors that results in failure but there are crucial internal dynamics as well. There have been instances where two founders just do not get along or when the management team falls apart when the initial strategy fails or even, when the core team including the founders are not ready to buck up and commit to long work hours. The lack of motivation, or a common goal and/or ideology can contribute to a company’s failure. The idea of a startup seems to be a brilliant idea, but a great deal of hard work and passion goes into establishing it.
Weak business model
It’s not only about ideas and innovations; customers will buy your finished product and not your ideas. Of course inventions are fascinating but business and consumers will buy complete products that they can actually use in daily life. Founders should chalk out a monetisation policy right from the very beginning.
Having a startup is no cake walk, and chances are you will not reach your goal in one go. Learning from your mistake is the key in this otherwise very competitive business world.
What we are seeing with entrepreneur startups is the same patronage funding pay-to-play that exists in our US city BOARD OF ESTIMATES where government funding is doled out to those 5% global Wall Street players who often simply live off those funds until that funding stops. This has existed in our US city local funding these few decades of ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and it has now gone to these Federal and state small business structures. Someone gets that start up funding-----lives on it for a few years and then the funding ends-----they then apply for a new funding source for another startup and we see where stats create the illusion something productive is happening with this non-economy policy.
As this article states===what happens when global Wall Street no longer needs to pretend to be meeting a 60% of the labor participation? They will stop that funding program whether government funding or VENTURE CAPITALIST ANGEL funding----it is all a hoax.
GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, UBER were developed by nerds and geniuses working inside our Department of Defense and/or private corporate universities----the 99% of people are not the INNOVATORS and neither are the owners of these global corporations.
'He worked 80 or 90 hours a week, spending some nights in a hotel to be closer to work. His children had Skully stickers on their laptops. As the company fell apart, Rodriguez pulled himself away for a preplanned trip to France with his wife for their anniversary. On the plane, he was hit hard by what happened.
"I was looking out the window, and I just started bawling," Rodriguez said. "I was saddened for customers ... I was grieving for them. I was grieving for the work I put in for the development of this product. I was grieving for the time that I was away from my family."'
Trump and Bains Capital corporate raiders like to PRETEND they are business-savvy in pushing corporate bankruptcy to shed legal debts to which is usually the 99% of citizens doing the contract work as we see here in this article where people tied to these startup models are left with no payments.
When startups fail: What happens when the cash runs out
October 5, 2016 by Marisa Kendall, The Mercury News
Silicon Valley has long lured ambitious entrepreneurs into shiny co-working spaces and startup accelerators, promising them the chance to create the next Google, Facebook or Uber.
But the reality is most startups fail, a risk that some say is growing as funding that once poured into the booming tech market begins to slow. For founders and employees, the results can be devastating.
"It sounds good on paper, but that's not really how it is," Dr. Michael Freeman said of the Silicon Valley dream. A psychiatrist at the University of California at San Francisco who studies and counsels entrepreneurs, Freeman likened the tech boom to the Gold Rush. "A lot of people in 1849 came to California looking for gold. And some people found it - and most didn't."
Lately, it's the entrepreneurs in the "didn't find gold" category who are making headlines. San Francisco-based smart motorcycle helmet maker Skully ran out of funds and shut down in August after its founders were accused of spending company money on luxury cars, vacations and strippers. Weeks later, job platform WrkRiot went offline after a former employee claimed the founders forged wire transfers because they couldn't pay workers.
Those failures can be crushing for employees - and not just because they find themselves out of a job. Carlos Rodriguez, Skully's former vice president of sales and marketing, said the company's demise was especially painful because he was personally invested in Skully's mission to prevent motorcycle accidents.
He worked 80 or 90 hours a week, spending some nights in a hotel to be closer to work. His children had Skully stickers on their laptops. As the company fell apart, Rodriguez pulled himself away for a preplanned trip to France with his wife for their anniversary. On the plane, he was hit hard by what happened.
"I was looking out the window, and I just started bawling," Rodriguez said. "I was saddened for customers ... I was grieving for them. I was grieving for the work I put in for the development of this product. I was grieving for the time that I was away from my family."
Now Rodriguez works as an adviser for a few other tech companies, but they compensate him mostly in equity, forcing him to live off his savings while he hunts for another job. Despite his experiences at Skully, he's considering signing on with another small startup.
"You can have a greater impact," he said, "whereas in corporate America you're literally a name on a list."
Zirtual founder and CEO Maren Kate Donovan felt a similar heartbreak when her startup went under last year.
"It was very much like several deaths," she said. "It was the death of hopes and dreams. It was the death of a community that I and my co-founders had spent five years building. ... It was absolutely devastating - definitely one of the worst things I've ever been through."
Zirtual, a San Francisco- and Las Vegas-based startup, matched small-business owners with remote online assistants. The company ultimately was resurrected after being acquired by Startups.co, but Donovan didn't stay.
Silicon Valley hadn't prepared Donovan for failure. People rarely talk about startups that don't make it, Donovan said. Now she offers one piece of advice to other entrepreneurs: Get a therapist - you're going to need one.
Failures don't just affect the founders and employees - a startup's customers also pay the price when the company collapses.
Emilie Fairbanks, a lawyer who runs a small landlord-tenant law practice in Washington, D.C., used a Zirtual assistant for three years before waking up to an email that said the company was no more. Fairbanks panicked. She changed the passwords her assistant used, got a new credit card and ran damage control with clients who were used to emailing her assistant directly - and now were seeing their emails bounce back. It was disruptive, and Fairbanks worried it made her look unprofessional.
"It really has made me less willing to use other startup services," she said.
Still, for entrepreneurs, failure is nearly a Silicon Valley rite of passage.
"The cost of failure has gone down pretty dramatically ... and that's a good thing in some respects, but that's also a bad thing," said Harvard Business School professor and startup expert Shikhar Ghosh. "It creates a certain recklessness."
Digital publishing company Mode Media, which was valued at $1 billion and rumored to be on the verge of an initial public offering a few years ago, became another Silicon Valley casualty last month. Mode struck advertising deals between bloggers and third-party companies, posting ads on the blogs and doling out cash to the bloggers. When Mode shut down, many of those bloggers claimed they were owed thousands of dollars.
"I'll be honest, I cried," parenting blogger Jeanine Macintosh, of Toronto, wrote in an email. She says Mode owes her almost $1,300 - a chunk of cash that could feed her large family for three weeks. "I just had baby number seven ... and count on every cent I do make from my blog."
Sometimes the money runs out for employees, too. In a scathing blog post in August about an anonymous startup later revealed as WrkRiot, former employee Penny Kim described waiting for paychecks that never came as the company's funds dried up and the founder made empty promises.
It's not an uncommon complaint in Silicon Valley. Founders frequently put off paying employees as they wait out their next round of funding, even though the practice is illegal, said employment attorney Sebastian Miller. And if that funding falls through, often there's no money left to pay those back wages.
Ghosh estimates that between 70 and 75 percent of venture-backed startups don't return the money investors put in - and of those, more than half return nothing. Venture capital database CB Insights tracked more than 1,000 startups that raised seed rounds in 2009 and 2010, and found that by the end of 2015, less than half secured a second round of funding. Just 22 percent achieved a sale or IPO, and 1 percent reached a value of $1 billion.
Startups may fail because there's no market for their service or product, their technology doesn't work or because they grow too quickly or too slowly. But personality also comes into play - entrepreneurs tend to have an appetite for risk, an elevated level of self-confidence and a tendency toward aggression, Freeman said. Those qualities can be effective in business, but they also can make a founder unwilling to compromise or listen to his or her board - factors that can lead to a company's implosion.
Those personality traits also may be what keep some bruised and battered entrepreneurs coming back for more. After Zirtual crashed, Donovan considered jobs at large corporations. But in the end she signed on as chief operating officer at Roam, a startup that rents international co-living spaces.
"At the end of the day," she said, "I'd much rather do something that's a little high risk and really, really love what I'm doing."
'Better yet, 80 percent of those who plan to start businesses in the next three years are doing something about it, such as leasing space or registering their companies. How many startups will emerge from such preparation is, of course, unknown'.
80% of US citizens getting involved in startups. Here in Baltimore we have citizens taught how to register patents for technology games et al ----how to file for grant funds and all of this goes nowhere for 99% of people involved. What it does do is place all these startup patents into a database that then global corporations search and if they like this send in lawyers to seize patent rights. PATENT TROLLING BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS profiting from these 99% of startup patents going nowhere for those citizens is now SOARING.
The 99% of course do not have the money resources to fight these trolls on court and our US Justice, State's Attorney, City Attorney do not provide PUBLIC JUSTICE from these usurpers. All 80% of US citizens tying themselves to these startup/patenting economies are never listed as unemployed with these businesses fail----that is why 4.7% unemployment figures exist----FAKE ECONOMY.
The 99% of course do not have the money resources to fight these trolls on court and our US Justice, State's Attorney, City Attorney do not provide PUBLIC JUSTICE from these usurpers. All 80% of US citizens tying themselves to these startup/patenting economies are never listed as unemployed with these businesses fail----that is why 4.7% unemployment figures exist----FAKE ECONOMY.
Global Wall Street pols are simply setting WE THE PEOPLE up for failure and for more looting by global corporations ---this time of what would be our intellectual property if these startups were really tied to industries having consumer products needed by 99% of people.
The 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pols and players know this is happening---GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET PLAYERS!
Why patent trolls won’t give up
Posted Jun 5, 2016 by Ira Blumberg
Ira Blumberg ContributorIra Blumberg is the vice president of IP at Lenovo.
In Return of the Jedi, Yoda tells Luke “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.”
Luckily for me, this didn’t apply to the patent world. I spent seven years on the “dark side” working for patent trolls before coming back to the light. Patent trolls are companies that derive all or almost all of their revenue by asserting patents against other companies.
My experiences while on the “dark side” profoundly shaped my view on the role that Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), or patent trolls, play in the tech industry. The struggle between PAEs and companies that produce and sell products is not as stark or binary as “light and dark,” or “good and evil,” but the fact remains that PAE litigation does more harm than good.
The tech industry is fertile ground for PAE litigation, with its many patents, plentiful companies and an increasing global reliance on technology. PAEs have no incentive to stop unless we in tech work together to stand up against them.
The grass is not always greener
When I first started out in law firms, I represented clients on all sides of the patent ecosystem. Then at Intel, I spent seven years defending my company against patent claims from other operating companies and from trolls. When dealing with other product companies, Intel and other high-tech companies use their own patents to defend themselves and to balance any demands made by the aggressor.
One of the big issues with trolls is that there is no reciprocal liability and no vulnerability to patents, which allows trolls to be aggressive and operate with near impunity as there is nothing a product company can use to offset its exposure to the troll’s patents.
After seven exhausting years of dealing with aggressive threats of litigation, demands for fast payment and being the perpetual bearer of bad (and expensive) news to my senior management, I was ready for a change. I joined Rambus, a company with a reputation for aggressively asserting its patents on computer memory.
As the VP of Licensing at Rambus, I was on the front line of every patent assertion engagement the company ran for more than five years. After Rambus, I joined Intellectual Ventures (IV), the world’s largest patent-licensing company, as a Licensing Executive, where I was again on the front line of more than eight patent-licensing engagements. IV is considered by some to be Silicon Valley’s “most hated” troll or a patron saint of sorts for inventors.
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
After a couple of years at IV I had had enough. Working for a PAE relieved me of the onslaught of patent licensing demands and constant threats of litigation I experienced at Intel. However, there were several new sources of stress on the troll side.
First, patent licensing is the income-generating engine for the whole company, and there was constant and tremendous pressure to bring in money as cheaply and quickly as possible. In a zero-sum game where PAEs are looking to maximize their revenue while the target company wants to minimize its costs, there’s no love lost for the troll side.
Although I felt I was able to maintain my professional integrity, the natural inclination of the target company is to avoid you as long as possible and get away from you as quickly as possible. After seven years of the troll life, I made the decision to return to the corporate world and work for a company that actually makes things and helps push the technology industry forward, so I joined Lenovo as the Vice President of Intellectual Property.
While I was eager to leave, my time on the “dark side” was valuable because it yielded insight and nuance into how PAEs operate, the negative impact they have and what can be done about them.
Harm versus good
The sad reality is that the patents used by trolls do not need to be good for IV, or any PAE, to make money. Quality is not an issue when it costs $2-$3 million to find out whether a patent claim has merit, whereas settling costs “just” $500,000-$1 million. Trolls often aggressively push for extortionate settlements that far surpass the value of the IP because they know many companies will choose to settle rather than get embroiled in an expensive and drawn-out lawsuit. Their actions can wreak havoc on tech companies of all sizes.
A study from Boston University estimates that patent litigation destroys more than $60 billion in firm wealth each year, and that doesn’t even factor in ancillary effects, such as curbed innovation due to decreased amounts of venture investing.
That said, working for PAEs did help me appreciate certain arguments in their favor. IV argues that if it didn’t buy patents, inventors would never get paid. By creating a capital market for invention, it claims to help revitalize inefficient companies, make innovation profitable and “turbocharge technological progress.”
In theory, there is some validity to this argument. It is true that individual inventors and smaller companies are not always well-compensated for their inventions. But in reality, the harm businesses suffer on this front is significantly outweighed by the harm caused by the exorbitant costs of patent litigation lawsuits. The settlements IV gains from tens of thousands of patents is vastly out of proportion with the value of the innovation being licensed.
From light to dark and back again
It is now abundantly clear to me that PAEs are, in net, detrimental to business and innovation. Despite what they say, trolls are not making the world a better place for anyone. It is time they lay down their arms and allow companies to use the patent system in the way in which it was intended.
Patent trolling is lucrative, however, and the chances that PAEs will forsake it for the greater good are slim. Legitimate businesses have a responsibility, both to themselves and to the tech industry as a whole, to try to minimize this activity. For larger, well-resourced corporations like Lenovo, this can mean purchasing strong patent portfolios when they become available. PAEs essentially use patents as weapons, so the fewer patents they have, the better.
A company can also set its own corporate policy that prohibits it from selling patents to trolls. This is important, as more than 80 percent of patents litigated by PAEs are acquired from operating companies.
Lenovo believes strongly in protecting innovation, and having seen the real threats that trolls can pose, I pushed to join LOT Network, a non-profit community of companies that work together to minimize their exposure to patents owned by trolls. With fellow members like Red Hat, Canon, Logitech and Subaru, we’re making a real dent in the pool of patents that would be useful to PAEs. At last count, nearly half a million patent assets were protected from being used as weapons in PAE litigation against members of LOT Network.
As someone who has spent time on both sides, I feel a call to speak out against frivolous and overpriced patent litigation. The work I did for both PAEs and corporations was certainly legal, but not the same: While I was always on the right side of the law, I prefer being on the right side of innovation.
Companies want to create technologies that matter five years from now and beyond, so patents continue to matter. Frivolous lawsuits and those demanding damages far in excess of the value of the allegedly infringed patent detract from our ability to push innovation and better products forward. I hope that many more voices in tech will join mine in decrying the harmful effects of needless patent litigation — our future depends on it.
Global Wall Street is simply SUBPRIMING what was a strong US patent system by first directing all these tech startup entrepreneurs who are almost all simply the 99% having no ability to build these businesses bit flood our patent system making it impossible to maintain or provide oversight protection for REAL inventors. IF someone does get that patent they then generally end up leaving it sitting idle and that is when global Wall Street sends in the trolls finding the best ideas to fund themselves.
When we have 80% of Americans tied to these startup economies taking more citizens as temporary employees we have totally dismantled our once strong, stable, full - time employment structure in the US for centuries.
'A non-practicing entity is a patentee that does not “practice” its patent. It does not produce a product or service that use the invention covered by the patent. NPEs include universities and other research facilities, independent inventors, small and start-up businesses, and technology licensing companies'.
While the US Justice Department and our state's attorneys are all in overtime protecting global corporate patents----they are doing nothing to protect these WE THE PEOPLE patents----
This is why we call this a non-economy---and we know that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street player that has been receiving all these pay-to-play patronage funds are the same receiving that 1% of successful start up funds--all this just temporary to make the economy look like it has FULL EMPLOYMENT.
What Is a Patent Troll?
A “patent troll” is a company that abuses the patent system by sending out what are called “demand letters” to hundreds or even thousands of small businesses demanding payment from them for infringement of a patent that is often not even identified or only referenced in very general terms.
Unfortunately, the term “patent troll” is being used by Big Tech (the large, high-tech corporations) to describe virtually any patentee (other than one of their own) that owns a patent and is attempting to assert it against an infringer. And Big Tech has spent millions of dollars to vilify the NPEs (non-practicing entities) that are attempting to exercise the intellectual property rights that come with a U.S. Patent, and were established by the Founding Fathers and incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.
A non-practicing entity is a patentee that does not “practice” its patent. It does not produce a product or service that use the invention covered by the patent. NPEs include universities and other research facilities, independent inventors, small and start-up businesses, and technology licensing companies. When an entity owns a patent, but it does not have a factory in which to produce a product or service that uses that patent – such as a university – it still has the right to enforce its patent rights against infringers.
The real patent trolls are the companies that send out demand letters. Since not just the manufacture and sale of a product that uses a patented invention – but also the use of such a product – constitutes infringement, these less-than-reputable companies send out hundreds or even thousands of letters to mostly small businesses demanding payment for the business’s use of a product that allegedly uses the patent troll’s patent. These demand letters often include no specifics about how the product specifically infringes the patent troll’s patent. Demand letters typically contain little or know factual information about the patent and which of the patents claims are specifically infringed.
Patent trolls target small businesses because small business owners and managers are busy running their businesses, they are not sophisticated in intellectual property law and practices, they do not have in-house counsel to advise them, and they are hesitant to engage an attorney. As a result, many small business owners just send these patent trolls a check. It is exactly these companies that the TROL Act of 2014 addresses.
So what is the proper term for a non-practicing entity that is a responsible patentee but does not have a factory in which to produce a product that uses its patented invention, and it seeks to monetize its intellectual assets via licensing? These are “technology licensing companies.” A technology licensing company is an entity that owns one or more patents – patents it may have filed for on its own and/or patents it may have acquired – and it seeks to amicably license these patents and/or assert them against infringers. Unlike a patent troll, a technology licensing company acts in a responsible manner, performs considerable due diligence before making a claim of infringement, and fully documents its claims. A technology licensing company focuses on manufacturers and sellers of infringing products and services, not small businesses that bought and now unknowingly use the infringing products or services.
Technology licensing companies perform five important functions that are critical to the American patent system, the U.S. innovation community and American global competitiveness:
1. Provide Liquidity: When an independent inventor, small business, research lab, hospital, university or other patentee has a patent, and the patentee does not have the means to produce a product or service that uses that patent, and the patent is being infringed, a Technology Licensing Company provides liquidity for what would otherwise be an ill-liquid asset.
2. Increase the Value of Patents: By providing liquidity for this asset class, technology licensing companies increase the value of all U.S. Patents, and that enables technology-based new businesses to raise capital to turn their innovations into products and services, and that creates jobs and opportunity!
3. Turn Invention into Capital: When a Technology Licensing Company secures an award, settlement and/or license for an infringed patent, it rewards innovation by turning that invention into capital that can go back into the innovation process.
4. Insure Continued Innovation: If the time came that innovators could not secure a return on their innovation efforts, there would be no incentive to innovate. Technology licensing companies, by turning invention into capital, ensure a return on the efforts of all innovators.
5. American Global Competitive: Providing a return to innovators on the fruits of their innovative efforts is critical to enable America to compete in an increasingly more competitive global marketplace.
American Innovators for Patent Reform represents the interests of the innovation community, and that includes technology licensing companies, but not patent trolls.
Baltimore is indeed leading the nation in funds and government structures tied to ENTREPRENEURSHIP/STARTUPS and it has absolutely no oversight protections for citizens in patenting/for citizens working for these temporary startups not getting paid---and it has a strong tie to pay-to-play. We see Baltimore as ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES taking all internet and high-speed capacity needed for any of these local startups to survive ----they are MOVING FORWARD with that global corporate campus telecommunications monopoly RIGHT NOW.
Not all activities in this area are bad----what is bad is driving a huge percentage of WE THE PEOPLE to these economic structures KNOWING they will not succeed or be able to grow capacity for the future. Along with all these STARTUP tech businesses comes the need for CODING, PROGRAMMING, jobs we know will be the lowest in global labor pool.
WE SEE HERE IN BALTIMORE THESE RISKY LARGELY TEMPORARY STARTUP FUNDING TIED TO WOMEN AND MINORITY BUSINESSES----WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL BUSINESSES TIED TO GOVERNMENT FUNDING THESE FEW DECADES---THOSE BUSINESSES WERE BANKRUPTED FROM LACK OF FUNDS AND CONTRACTING AWARDS. THESE ARE ONLY TEMPORARY ECONOMIES FOLKS---
These 7 leading Baltimore tech orgs just got BDC funding
The $575,000 from the Baltimore Development Corporation Innovation Fund went to organizations that support startups — especially diverse ones.
These 7 leading Baltimore tech orgs just got BDC funding
Booz Allen Hamilton looks to get ‘citizen focused’ in acquistion of Laurel-based Aquilent
10 times Baltimore technologists made an impact using civic data
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake with tech community leaders including Social Innovation Lab Director Darius Graham, Impact Hub Baltimore's Rodney Foxworth and Michelle Geiss, ETC President Deb Tillett, Johns Hopkins Senior Advisor to the President Christy Wyskiel, Conscious Venture Labs' Jeff Cherry, Betamore CEO Jen Meyer, Greg Cangialosi of Betamore and Baltimore Angels and Innovation Village Chairman Richard May.
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake stood surrounded by leaders of the Baltimore tech community as she began her weekly news conference at City Hall on Wednesday morning.
There, she unveiled $575,000 in new funding from the Baltimore Development Corporation Innovation Fund, specifically aimed at retaining and attracting tech and innovation companies. Rawlings-Blake first announced plans for the fund last year.
“This fund is a catalyst for further entrepreneurship, and I think it is one of the hallmarks of what BDC is doing,” Rawlings-Blake said at what is expected to be her final press conference as mayor. “It’s not just money that is going out the door but the way they’re using that to add strength to some of our emerging businesses in the city.”
Diversity is another key aim, as many of the awards set aside specific percentages to go to women- and minority-owned businesses. The one-time funds are also going to organizations looking to build on efforts to spur social entrepreneurship and create startups in West Baltimore.
Here’s the breakdown of the seven orgs that won awards, via the city:
- Innovation Village, which is spearheading an innovation district in West Baltimore, received $100,000 to support entrepreneurship and business recruitment and retention.
- Conscious Venture Labs, the accelerator focused on purpose-driven companies that is relocating to Innovation Village, received $100,000 to be used for grants to entrepreneurs. Thirty-five percent of the funding must go to women- and minority-owned businesses.
- Impact Hub Baltimore, the social entrepreneurship space in Station North, received $35,000 for grants to businesses, with 35 percent required to women and minority-owned businesses.
- Baltimore Angels, the investment group targeting early-stage companies, received $75,000 for investment in startups, with 50 percent going to women- and minority-owned businesses.
- Social Innovation Lab, the Johns Hopkins-run accelerator program for social entrepreneurship, received $100,000 for grants to ventures, with 35 percent required to go to women- and minority-owned businesses.
- Betamore, the Federal Hill incubator, received $50,000 for programming and education with a strong focus on minority- and women-owned businesses.
- Labs@Light City, the innovation conference portion of the weeklong Light City Baltimore festival, received $100,000 to support programming.
If we look at these cities where a pipeline from startup to global corporate buying of patents has already taken hold most are tied to US Foreign Economic Zones tied to tech industry having laid off US tech workers who are now those trying to be startups. It is the killing off of our status of employee pushing those former employees into startup economy.
99% of WE THE PEOPLE will go nowhere with this--most that do are tied to global IVY LEAGUES with patents tied to government research and development. When someone on East Coast says---well, we have to go to West Coast to be successful startup---they need to WAKE UP to the artificial dynamic having none of this with a future ----it is all tied to free research and development for global corporations and they will be the only ones accessing internet capacity to operate these online tech patents.
America's Leading Startup Neighborhoods
More than 50 percent are urban, and two in downtown San Francisco attract more than a billion dollars each in venture capital.
Venture capital is the driving force of high-tech innovation, spurring revolutionary companies from Intel, Apple, and Genentech to Twitter, Facebook, and Uber. But venture capital investment in startup companies is increasingly concentrated in a small number of urban neighborhoods in America’s major cities. That’s the main takeaway of a new report I co-authored with my Martin Prosperity Institute colleague Karen King. The report, titled Rise of the Urban Startup Neighborhood, uses granular data from Thomson Reuters to look at micro-clusters of venture capital investment across America’s neighborhoods and five leading high-tech industries: software, biotechnology, media and entertainment, medical devices and equipment, and information technology services.
The first map shows the pattern for software, an industry that attracts $12 billion, or 36 percent, of total venture capital investment. Again, venture capital investment is primarily located in the Bay Area and across the New York-Boston-Washington Corridor, but smaller circles also appear in Southern California, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, and Austin.
The table below shows the top ten neighborhoods with the highest shares of venture capital investment in software. Palo Alto tops the list with $750 million, or 6.3 percent, of investment. But, the next three neighborhoods are located in San Francisco: Rincon Hill ($652 million), Potrero/Dogpatch/South Beach ($444 million), and South of Market/Mission District ($389 million). In total, a whopping 15 of the top 20 neighborhoods are located in the Bay Area (eight in San Francisco and seven in San Jose).
Palo AltoSan Jose$750
Rincon HillSan Francisco$652
Potrero Hill/Dogpatch/South BeachSan Francisco$444
South of Market/Mission DistrictSan Francisco$389
Financial DistrictSan Francisco$231
Los Altos HillsSan Jose$210
Old Mountain ViewSan Jose$202
Foster CitySan Francisco$198
Redwood ShoresSan Francisco$192
The second map shows the pattern for biotechnology, which attracts $5.7 billion, or 17 percent, of all venture capital investment nationwide. Once more, investment is clustered in the Bay Area, Southern California, and the New York-Boston-Washington Corridor, as well as smaller metros like Seattle and Detroit.
The table below shows the top ten neighborhoods with the highest biotechnology investment shares. South San Francisco tops the list with $474 million, followed by Sorrento Valley in San Diego ($310 million), two neighborhoods near MIT, and two near Chevy Chase/Bethesda (close to the National Institutes of Health). Unlike the software industry, biotechnology investment tends to be clustered around major universities and research centers.
South San FranciscoSan Francisco$474
Sorrento ValleySan Diego$310
Chevy Chase/BethesdaWashington, D.C.$150
West Lake/Queen AnneSeattle$145
San CarlosSan Francisco$138
Redwood CitySan Francisco$129
Redwood ShoresSan Francisco$126
Media and Entertainment
The third map below shows the geography of venture capital investment in media and entertainment, an industry which attracts another $3.2 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of venture capital investment nationally. This time, venture capital investment is mostly concentrated in the Bay Area, greater Los Angeles, and New York, with smaller clusters near Seattle, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Miami.
The table below lists the top ten neighborhoods for investment in media and entertainment. Two San Francisco neighborhoods—the Mission District and Rincon Hill—top the list with $481 million and $154 million, respectively. Rounding out the top five are Soho/NYU in New York ($130 million), Potrero Hill/Dogpatch/South Beach in San Francisco ($124 million), and Palo Alto in San Jose ($119 million). In total, the top 20 consists of six neighborhoods in San Francisco, four in New York, three in San Jose, two in L.A., and one each in Santa Barbara, Miami, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.
South of Market/Mission DistrictSan Francisco$481
Rincon HillSan Francisco$154
Potrero Hill/Dogpatch/South BeachSan Francisco$124
Palo AltoSan Jose$119
UC IrvineLos Angeles$90
Hayes Valley/Civic CenterSan Francisco$86
Gramercy Park/East VillageNew York$68
Medical Devices and Equipment
The fourth map below shows the pattern for medical devices and equipment, which makes up a slightly smaller share of national venture capital investment: $2.4 billion, or roughly 7 percent. The majority of this investment is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, Southern California, New York, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and North Carolina, although investment is far less clustered than it is for other high-tech industries, as the map below shows.
The table below lists the ten leading neighborhoods for venture capital investment in medical devices and equipment. Menlo Park leads the pack, with $162 million—more than twice the investment of the second neighborhood on the list, Atwood/Hanes in North Carolina ($74 million). All together, L.A., Boston-Cambridge, and San Francisco each contribute three of the top 20 neighborhoods, while San Jose and Minneapolis-St.Paul each have two. Rounding out the top 20 are single neighborhoods in Winston-Salem, San Diego, Durham-Chapel Hill, Atlanta, New York, Santa Rosa, and Cleveland.
Menlo ParkSan Francisco$162
Redwood CitySan Francisco$69
Sorrento ValleySan Diego$66
Mountain ViewSan Jose$59
Lake ForestLos Angeles$55
Laguna HillsLos Angeles$48
Information Technology Services
The fifth map charts the geography of venture capital investment in information technology services, which attracts just $2 billion, or 6 percent, of all venture capital investment in the U.S. As the map below shows, the majority of this investment is concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Atlanta.
The table below shows the ten leading neighborhoods for venture capital investment in IT services. Again, three downtown San Francisco neighborhoods top the list: Potrero Hill/Dogpatch/South Beach ($139 million), Rincon Hill ($98 million), and the Financial District ($83 million). In total, eight San Francisco neighborhoods make the top 20, in addition to three in San Jose and three in New York. Baltimore, Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Bridgeport, Connecticut, each claim a single neighborhood.
Potrero Hill/Dogpatch/South BeachSan Francisco$139
Rincon HillSan Francisco$98
Financial DistrictSan Francisco$83
Cuesta Park/Blossom ValleySan Jose$73
Embarcadero/Financial DistrictSan Francisco$54
Palo Alto (South)San Jose$51
Midtown/Old Fourth WardAtlanta$40
All High-Tech Industries
The last map brings it all together, charting the geography of venture capital investment across all high-tech industries. The largest clusters are found in the San Francisco Bay Area, around Los Angeles and San Diego in Southern California, and in the New York-Boston-Washington Corridor on the East Coast.
The table below shows the 20 neighborhoods with the largest amounts of venture capital investment. San Francisco neighborhoods make up three of the top five and six of the top ten. All together, the top 20 includes nine neighborhoods in San Francisco, five in San Jose, three in Boston-Cambridge, and one each in San Diego, Dallas, and New York. Many of these neighborhoods are located in urban centers or around major universities including MIT, Stanford, the University of California, San Diego, and New York University.
South of Market/Mission DistrictSan Francisco$1,057
Rincon HillSan Francisco$1,004
Palo AltoSan Jose$998
Potrero Hill/Dogpatch/South BeachSan Francisco$885
Sorrento ValleySan Diego$568
South San FranciscoSan Francisco$501
Financial DistrictSan Francisco$481
Menlo ParkSan Francisco$426
Mountain ViewSan Jose$402
Old Mountain ViewSan Jose$392
Redwood CitySan Francisco$378
Redwood ShoresSan Francisco$369
Santa ClaraSan Jose$313
Financial District/EmbarcaderoSan Francisco$306
Ultimately, venture capital investment and startup activity is strikingly concentrated across U.S. neighborhoods. The top 20 neighborhoods alone account for more than $10 billion in venture capital investment—roughly a third of the national total. In addition, less than one percent (0.2 percent) of all ZIP codes, or 83 neighborhoods, attract more than $100 million in venture capital investment, representing over 60 percent of all venture capital investment nationwide. Overall, there are two billion-dollar venture capital neighborhoods, both located in downtown San Francisco: South of Market/Mission District and Rincon Hill. Palo Alto, home to Stanford University, is a close third, with $988 million in venture capital investment. Three more neighborhoods—two in San Francisco and one in San Diego, close to the University of California, San Diego—receive more than half a billion dollars in venture capital investment.
Despite ongoing predictions of the “rise of the rest”—the notion that high-tech startup activity is spreading to more and new areas of the U.S.—the reality is that venture capital and startup activity are extraordinarily clustered in a small number of neighborhoods across the country.
Global Wall Street sees robotics as artificial intelligence waiting to reach maximum potential meaning artificial intelligence needs to be fed through mega-computers to assimilate human thought---human feelings----human creativity----and that takes lots and lots of mega-data coming from places like SOCIAL MEDIA----from free-thinking startup processes----just how do humans design and develop? We shout to 99% of people how FB and social media spying is more about accumulating these conversations and thought patterns as will be all those tens of millions of citizens being drawn into design and development of social technology patents. It is quite literally a BRAIN DRAIN----they expect robotics to eventually even write code and programming---write books and be the ACADEMICS to global 99%.
WE KNOW THESE ECONOMIC MODELS HAVE A GOAL OF NO JOBS FOR HUMANS---WHY ARE WE THE PEOPLE ALLOWING MOVING FORWARD?
It is not Trump having taken the US to this point---it was CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA with OBAMA super-sizing this economic model to great detriment to the 99%. Global Wall Street likes to tell us all this is UNSTOPPABLE----OH, REALLY????? It is not only STOPPABLE----it is easy peasy to reverse all this---just get rid of global Wall Street pols and players!
Taking all that human thought energy and process and feeding it into mega-computers to grow artificial intelligence capability===that is all that global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are doing with these economic policies.
- Partner Content
- Author: Marguerite McNeal. Marguerite McNeal
The robots haven’t just landed in the workplace—they’re expanding skills, moving up the corporate ladder, showing awesome productivity and retention rates, and increasingly shoving aside their human counterparts. One multi-tasker bot, from Momentum Machines, can make (and flip) a gourmet hamburger in 10 seconds and could soon replace an entire McDonalds crew. A manufacturing device from Universal Robots doesn’t just solder, paint, screw, glue, and grasp—it builds new parts for itself on the fly when they wear out or bust. And just this week, Google won a patent to start building worker robots with personalities.
As intelligent machines begin their march on labor and become more sophisticated and specialized than first-generation cousins like Roomba or Siri, they have an outspoken champion in their corner: author and entrepreneur Martin Ford. In his new book, Rise of the Robots, he argues that AI and robotics will soon overhaul our economy.
There’s some logic to the thesis, of course, and other economists such as Andrew (The Second Machine Age) McAfee have sided generally with Ford’s outlook. Oxford University researchers have estimated that 47 percent of U.S. jobs could be automated within the next two decades. And if even half that number is closer to the mark, workers are in for a rude awakening.
In Ford’s vision, a full-on worker revolt is on the horizon, followed by a radically new economic state whereby humans will live more productive and entrepreneurial lives, subsisting on guaranteed incomes generated by our amazing machines. (Don’t laugh — even some conservative influencers believe this may be the ultimate means of solving the wealth-inequality dilemma.)
BASIC INCOME -------DON'T FALL FOR THIS!
Sound a little nuts? We thought so—we’re human, after all—so we invited Ford to defend his turf.
Critics say your vision of a jobless future isn’t founded in good research or logic. What makes you so convinced this phenomenon is real?
I see the advances happening in technology and it’s becoming evident that computers, machines, robots, and algorithms are going to be able to do most of the routine, repetitive types of jobs. That’s the essence of what machine learning is all about. What types of jobs are on some level fundamentally predictable? A lot of different skill levels fall into that category. It’s not just about lower-skilled jobs either. People with college degrees, even professional degrees, people like lawyers are doing things that ultimately are predictable. A lot of those jobs are going to be susceptible over time.
Right now there’s still a lot of debate over it. There are economists who think it’s totally wrong, that problems really stem from things like globalization or the fact that we’ve wiped out unions or haven’t raised the minimum wage. Those are all important, but I tend to believe that technology is a bigger issue, especially as we look to the future.
Eventually I think we’ll get to the point where there’s less debate about whether this is really happening or not. There will be more widespread agreement that it really is a problem and at that point we’ll have to figure out what to do about it.
Aren’t you relying on some pretty radical and unlikely assumptions?
People who are very skeptical tend to look at the historical record. It’s true that the economy has always adapted over time. It has created new kinds of jobs. The classic example of that is agriculture. In the 1800s, 80 percent of the U.S. labor force worked on farms. Today it’s 2 percent. Obviously mechanization didn’t destroy the economy; it made it better off. Food is now really cheap compared to what it was relative to income, and as a result people have money to spend on other things and they’ve transitioned to jobs in other areas. Skeptics say that will happen again.
The agricultural revolution was about specialized technology that couldn’t be implemented in other industries. You couldn’t take the farm machinery and have it go flip hamburgers. Information technology is totally different. It’s a broad-based general purpose technology. There isn’t a new place for all these workers to move.
You can imagine lots of new industries—nanotechnology and synthetic biology—but they won’t employ many people. They’ll use lots of technology, rely on big computing centers, and be heavily automated.
So in the all-automated economy, what will ambitious 20-somethings choose to do with their lives and careers?
My proposed solution is to have some kind of a guaranteed income that incentivizes education. We don’t want people to get halfway through high school and say, ‘Well if I drop out I’m still going to get the same income as everyone else.’
Then I believe that a guaranteed income would actually result in more entrepreneurship. A lot of people would start businesses just as they do today. The problem with these types of businesses you can start online today is it’s hard to put enough together to generate a middle-class income.
If people had an income floor, and if the incentives were such that on top of that they could do other things and still keep that extra money, without having it all taxed away, then I think a lot of people would pursue those opportunities.
There’s a phenomenon called the Peltzman Effect, based on research from an economist at the University of Chicago who studied auto accidents. He found that when you introduce more safety features like seat belts into cars, the number of fatalities and injuries doesn’t drop. The reason is that people compensate for it. When you have a safety net in place, people will take more risks. That probably is true of the economic arena as well.
People say that having a guaranteed income will turn everyone into a slacker and destroy the economy. I think the opposite might be true, that it might push us toward more entrepreneurship and more risk-taking.