The patent system in the United States was first adopted in 1790, and was designed to grant inventors a limited-time monopoly on the use of their inventions, in exchange for the public disclosure of those inventions to advance science and innovation.

But the patent system isn’t keeping up with the changing world, especially when it comes to new kinds of innovation. What worked well for protecting Thomas Edison’s ability to monetize his invention of the incandescent light bulb – giving him 20 years of revenue from the invention in exchange for opening up the details of his discovery to other inventors who could improve on the concept – isn’t working when it comes to software and business methods.

This is a common topic of discussion in the entrepreneurial community, and you’d think that software innovators might be in favor of software patents, right? No, quite the opposite.

Basic software concepts, like the best way to lay out a user interface, or a fundamental concept like tabs in a spreadsheet, are being patented, and the patent owners then sue software makers in an attempt to either (a) extract large sums of money, or (b) put them out of business.

The latest news is that Facebook has been granted a patent for the concept of “dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network.”

One commenter on venture capitalist Fred Wilson’s blog post said:

This is weird news. I run a small local social community and also use some kind of newsfeed system. Yet the earliest version of my newsfeed dates from 2003, way before facebook’s feed. If they wanted to, they could easily crush me with this patent as I dont have the judical knowledge and financial power to enter a legal battle with facebook. The could close me down, although everyone would know that it’s only because they have this patent, not because I copied the newsfeed from them.

What’s worse is, there are companies being founded for the sole purpose of buying up the rights to these patents, and filing piles of lawsuits against any new startups in the technology space that might possibly have a remote link to the patent. These brand new companies have no resources to fight back, so they often have to pay off the “patent troll” or just drop their idea and go out of business.

The pace of innovation and monetization in software far exceed the types of innovation that the patent system was designed to protect and nurture. The patent system can continue to be extremely valuable in these other areas, but It’s simply an outmoded and unnecessary structure for the arenas of software and business methods.

It hurts competition, hurts consumers, and hurts innovation far more than it helps.

Of course, we’ll continue to have copyright and trade secret protection. If I had invented Facebook, somebody couldn’t just copy my code and launch a clone the next day. They would have to outwork, out-innovate and out-execute me in the marketplace.

I think that’s the way it should be.

What do you think? Do patents belong in the software arena? How about hardware? Pharmaceuticals? What are the standards for deciding where they foster innovation and where they don’t? Use the comments below to share your thoughts.

If this keeps up, the Sacramento Bee will be next and then I’ll really think the apocalypse is upon us.

Sierra College is planning a major move into solar power at its Rocklin and Grass Valley campuses.

With plans for ground-mounted solar cells in parking lots and others on buildings, a report from the college estimates savings of from $75,000 to $125,000 a year on what is now a $1.5 million electricity bill.

The college has put out a request for proposals to construct solar arrays at the two campuses at no cost to Sierra. The contract would also include a power-purchase agreement that could save the college money on electricity. …

Trustee Aaron Klein, a member of the college board’s facilities and planning subcommittee, said that with federal tax credits for businesses, the financial details have been looking better for the college.

Klein said that he and fellow subcommittee member Nancy Palmer returned from a community-college trustees conference enthusiastic about the possibilities of solar after seeing what several other districts were doing.

After a presentation by Kirk Uhler, a former Solar Power Inc. employee, and Jim Conkey, a former construction partner with Solar Power, it was decided to hire an independent consultant to develop a request for proposals, Klein said.

Proposals are due Wednesday. Palmer and Bill Martin, the other member of the subcommittee, have volunteered to do interviews on March 18th before a recommendation is made to the board on bids.

“My goal for the project is no upfront capital investments by the college and no higher costs for energy down the road,” Klein said. “We just need to get the best deal that protects the college.”

Let me know if any of this makes sense to you, either.

Special Board Meeting Details:

• March 9, 2010 at 4:00PM
• Sierra College Rocklin Campus, Board Room, LRC-133
• Main agenda items begin at 4:00PM, public comment for items not on the agenda at 5:40PM
• Meeting Agenda
• Contracts (General / Capital Projects)
• Warrants

Our work continues to deal with the budget issues facing Sierra College. We’ll be hearing an update on the realities of trying to save the three career training programs recommended for closure out of the 24 we are currently working to maintain.

Use the comments below to answer the Question of the Month! (You can “log in” with your Facebook or Twitter account with a single click, or just fill in your name and e-mail address to leave a guest comment.)

Should Sierra College be focused on having as many educational programs as possible, or should it have a smaller number of programs but put our resources into achieving high levels of excellence and quality in each one?

Having Rocklin police officers on campus has been a very good step forward in safety for our students, our staff and the local community. After a 120-day initial contract, both the city and the college have now agreed to extend the contract in a multi-year deal.

Here’s the coverage from the Placer Herald.

A safe campus is spurring Sierra College leaders to give Rocklin Police a longer contract, according to school officials.

“At this point, the (Sierra College) board of trustees agree we will enter into a long-term agreement with the city of Rocklin,” said Sierra College President Dr. Leo Chavez.

Sierra College’s private police force was disbanded Nov. 1 after the police chief left for a state job. Chavez said since Rocklin officers took over law enforcement duty on campus, they’ve turned the school around.

“It’s possible the campus had developed a reputation as somewhat of an easy mark (for criminals),” Chavez said. “We’re losing that rapidly and we’re going to end up with a much safer campus, as a result.”

The former Sierra College Police Department reportedly wrote a handful of reports a month for serious incidents like accidents, theft and minor criminal activity, according to Rocklin Police officials. In the first month, Rocklin officers issued 29 reports and made two drug arrests. Just last month, Rocklin officers initiated a parking lot stake-out to catch a vehicle burglary suspect allegedly responsible for a series of thefts. Some students said they haven’t noticed the activity but admit that may be part of their success.

I don’t endorse political candidates all the time, but once in a while I get asked to. In this case, I didn’t even get asked – but recent events in the news made my decision for me. (For those of you who don’t live in the Sierra Foothills in Northern California, feel free to skip this post if it bores you!)

Nevada County has had a long history of drama in its Clerk-Recorder’s office. This is an important and critical function in county government. They protect your identity when you get a birth certificate, wedding license or death certificate. They manage the safe transfer of property between buyers and sellers. And they protect the foundation of our representative democracy by running our elections.

The Clerk-Recorder before this one, who was appointed to the job, made a bunch of idiotic mistakes in the process of running elections. Then it was discovered that she was moonlighting for another city two hours away and collecting double salary.

Fortunately, she resigned. But her replacement, a fellow I’ve never met named Greg Diaz, has continued the drama. He’s gone through four assistant recorders in the last fifteen months. And in the last couple of weeks, a new story exploded on the scene: Greg Diaz is now the only County Clerk-Recorder in the state being sued in federal court for fraud.

More on that in a second.

Barry Pruett, who is a local attorney and former small business owner, decided to run against Diaz many months ago, before the lawsuit was filed. He made that decision because he was witness to some highly questionable actions that Diaz took, which have now been documented in a story that appeared in The Union yesterday morning.

I met Barry back in 2008. He and his wife Kim were supporting Tom McClintock’s campaign for Congress (as was I). He’s a good guy and I’ve always been impressed by him. He owned a local gymnastics/athletics business before he got his law degree. Before that, he was a Director of Business Development for Apple Computer and did a stint overseas for them. He’s sharp, professional, communicates clearly and always exhibits a boatload of common sense. As I stated earlier, he hadn’t asked me to endorse him, so the thought hadn’t occurred to me.

Until now.

As many of you know, I’ve spent a great deal of time as a Sierra College Trustee working on the issue of keeping our tax dollars local. I spent a year and a half working with the Nevada County Contractors Association to create a level playing field for the campus expansion and renovation project at NCC, and making sure that a local team had the chance to bid for the work.

That effort wasn’t required by law, but it was the right thing to do, because it creates jobs here, in our community. By some accounts, because of the effort we made at Sierra College to keep our tax dollars local, we generated a $35 million dollar stimulus into the local economy. I was honored to be a part of that effort.

So when I see a local elected official doing exactly the opposite, it stops me in my tracks.

According to this news story, Nevada County has had a relationship with this local company for ten years, costing $377,000. The local company serves numerous counties all over California and the nation. They’ve since been replaced by an out-of-state company with costs estimated at $714,000 for ten years.

If you cut through all of the fluff in the story, here’s the bottom line: Diaz didn’t like this local company. Apparently they sent his office a letter and addressed it to his predecessor. So he cut them out of the bidding process. (This isn’t the first elected official to have an ego this big. Not cool.)

Diaz claims he didn’t oversee who was included in the requests for proposal. I can’t understand this. As the guy in charge of this decision, how can you NOT be involved in knowing who you’re asking to bid? It raises serious questions as to whether or not he’s engaged in his job or not. His claim doesn’t hold water.

The local company, who at the time had Barry Pruett as their attorney, raised the issue, and were told they could submit a bid. They got half the time to prepare their bid, and Diaz decided their presentation wasn’t quite as nifty as the others.

So Greg Diaz gave the contract to a higher bidder – the out of state firm – choosing their $357,000 proposal over the local firm’s $303,000 bid.

Unbelievable!

The story continues. About five months ago, Barry stopped representing that local company. They went and hired other lawyers, and believe that Diaz handed trade secrets to their software over to the out-of-state company with the higher bid to give them an unfair advantage. So now they’re suing the county and Greg Diaz for fraud.

Now, I’m told there’s no way this will all get rectified or the local company will get their contract back. That’s not the point of Barry’s decision to run.

But it’s simultaneously amusing and disturbing to think this whole episode might have been avoided, and all of this taxpayer money saved, if only the Clerk-Recorder wasn’t ticked off by a bad mail merge in a form letter.

Our local small businesses are struggling to make ends meet, fighting to preserve and create jobs for our taxpayers. We need all the help we can get from our elected officials to support our local economy. To have an elected official actively working to hinder local job creation – well, that person isn’t going to get my support. They’re just not qualified to hold office.

So for what it’s worth (and I’m the first to say it’s not worth all that much!), I wholeheartedly endorse Barry Pruett for Nevada County Clerk-Recorder. He’ll end the drama, bring professionalism to that office and support our local economy, small businesses and local jobs.

It’s still hard for me to believe that after New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, the White House is refusing to listen and intends to try to ram through a $2 to $3 trillion dollar subsidized health insurance bill that the public doesn’t want.

(And yes, it is $2 to $3 trillion. The CBO still hasn’t scored this proposal because there isn’t enough detail. But we know relationally that the last proposal was in the $2 trillion range. And just because you delay the implementation of your program for four or five years doesn’t mean that you can cut the ten year cost in half. This is the kind of flim-flammery that we put corporate executives in prison for, and for good reason.)

Here’s the excerpt of the Wall Street Journal piece today (hat tip to Fred for sending this my way):

A mere three days before President Obama’s supposedly bipartisan health-care summit, the White House [Monday] released a new blueprint that Democrats say they will ram through Congress with or without Republican support. So after election defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts, and amid overwhelming public opposition, Democrats have decided to give the voters what they don’t want anyway. Ah, the glory of ‘progressive’ governance and democratic consent.

‘The President’s Proposal,’ as the 11-page White House document is headlined, is in one sense a notable achievement: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them — but by expanding them to everyone. …

The larger political message of this new proposal is that Mr. Obama and Democrats have no intention of compromising on an incremental reform, or of listening to Republican, or any other, ideas on health care. They want what they want, and they’re going to play by Chicago Rules and try to dragoon it into law on a narrow partisan vote via Congressional rules that have never been used for such a major change in national policy. If you want to know why Democratic Washington is ‘ungovernable,’ this is it.

Republicans aren’t smart enough to have designed this great of a playbook for sweeping the 2010 elections. I honestly thought President Obama was an exceedingly smart guy when he was elected (despite my disagreements with him on policy). His inability to heed multiple warning calls has dramatically changed that perception.

Now they’ve released the music video. (Mobile, feed and e-mail readers: the embedded video is above.)

This entire project was the brainchild of Christian music artist Michael W. Smith, and the results are simply stunning.

Buy “Come Together Now” today – 100% of all proceeds go to Haiti.

LA Weekly has an investigative piece on over 1,000 unqualified and incompetent teachers that the Los Angeles Unified School District simply can’t fire because of unions putting their own interests ahead of student success.

In pursuing a firing, school officials rely on a teacher’s formal classroom evaluations and, sometimes, disciplinary write-ups, to file an "accusation and statement of charges," which lays out an educator’s teaching problems. The teacher can then ask for a decision on his or her case from the Commission on Professional Competence, a panel convened by the state Office of Administrative Hearings. Either side can appeal the outcome of that hearing in California Superior Court, and, ultimately, in higher courts.

It cost the district roughly $3.5 million to try to fire seven teachers because of the cost of hiring outside lawyers with special expertise, administrative overhead, paying ongoing salaries for each teacher during the lengthy legal battles, and other expenses. Documents show only one instance in the past 10 years in which an LAUSD teacher accepted his firing and left without a fight or big payment.

Just a few blocks from LAUSD’s skyscraper headquarters, Los Angeles City Hall’s approach to firing public employees provides a stark contrast to protections enjoyed by teachers, also public employees. Despite civil-service protections, City Hall fires from its 48,000-plus workforce of garbage, parks, street-services, engineering, utilities and other employees more than 80 tenured workers annually. During the past decade, in which LAUSD fired four failing teachers, 800 to 1,000 underperforming civil service–protected workers were fired at City Hall. City Personnel Department General Manager Margaret Whelan says nobody is paid to leave. She was dumbfounded that LAUSD is paying to dislodge teachers, saying, "That’s ridiculous. I can’t believe that. Golly, it makes no sense. Some are not even mediocre, they’re horrible."

Caprice Young, founder of the nonprofit California Charter Schools Association, was LAUSD school board president until 2003. She saw, behind closed doors, what the public can’t: the "dance of the lemons," a term that broadly describes controversial tactics LAUSD utilizes to cope with tenured teachers who can’t teach but, under the current system, cannot be fired. Those tactics include not only paying them to leave, but quietly transferring bad teachers to other, unsuspecting schools or repeatedly and fruitlessly "retraining" them while they continue to teach, sometimes harming the educations of thousands of children.

Young believes the inability of the schools to oust poor L.A. teachers is playing a key role in L.A.’s emergence as an epicenter of the charter-school movement. "One year with a bad teacher puts a kid a year, or two, behind the other kids," Young says. "If a parent sees their child has a lemon teacher, if they can get them into another school, they will."

…

President Barack Obama has begun pushing for tougher evaluations of teachers, tied to their classroom test scores, and for direct comparison of teachers with their colleagues along the same hallway. As those and other reforms aimed at teacher quality begin to find acceptance in other parts of the nation, however, it seems a stretch to imagine LAUSD, the district so big it educates one in 10 California children, joining in.

"The power of the union [and] the California Teachers Association in this state has definitely tipped the balance in favor of protecting the incompetent teacher," says Collins. Somehow, she says, "Parents and students need to know they have a voice."

Nobody should have a job that is impossible to get fired from for incompetence. This lack of accountability is an affront to taxpayers across our state, a disservice to our kids and an insult to the ideals of public education.

Photo Credit: LA Weekly

Did you know that Google makes it possible for you to use Gmail on a personal or business domain name? It’s called Google Apps for Your Domain, and if you already have a domain name, it’s completely free for up to 50 e-mail addresses!

It’s a little bit technical, but I wanted to share the steps here for you to set this up for yourself!

1. Buy your domain name. There are a variety of domain name providers out there, some cheaper than $10/year, depending on the services you want and whether you’re comfortable with managing the domain yourself.
2. Get access to your “DNS” settings. DNS is a little bit like a giant phone book. It translates friendly names like “aaronklein.com” into the numbers that represent the particular servers that host my web site. It also establishes where the e-mail sent to that domain name will be routed to. You’ll need access to edit your DNS settings to tell your mail to go to Google’s servers.
3. Establish your Google Apps account. You can sign up for Google Apps Basic (the free version limited to 50 e-mail boxes) completely free.
4. Update your “MX” records. In your Google Apps account, they’ll give you a list of “MX” records to put into your “DNS” (MX stands for “mail exchange” and that’s how the internet knows to send your mail to Google’s servers). You put in more than one so if one of Google’s servers are down, your mail keeps flowing.
5. Verify your domain with a “CNAME” record. Google Apps will ask you to verify your domain name to ensure you actually own it. They’ll give you a special code to create what is called a “CNAME” record. You do this in the same place you put your “MX” records…by editing your DNS settings.
6. Create your Google mailboxes. In the Google Apps administrator app, you can create up to 50 different user accounts (which double as e-mail boxes). You can also create “aliases” (for example, if you want jim@jim.com and j-dude@jim.com to come to the same mailbox, you can create a mailbox called jim and an alias for that mailbox called j-dude).

That’s it! You’ve now got Gmail for your own domain name. Enjoy.

I’ve written about this before, and Newsweek notes it in a recent article: big business is parting ways with the Republican Party. I think this is long overdue, frankly.

Take health-care reform. From the time the bill hit Congress, Republicans found themselves opposite big industry interests. From the drugmakers to the doctors to the insurers, every major player in the health-care battle declared themselves willing to work with Democrats to enact some variant on reform. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, were almost universally opposed. Health-care reform advocates eventually dug up a handful of Republican notables to support reform, and in a radio address, President Obama singled out four for special notice: former health and human services secretaries Louis Sullivan and Tommy Thompson and former Senate majority leaders Bill Frist and Bob Dole. But, as reported by The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney, it turned out that each of those Republican defectors had direct financial connections to the health-care industry, either as lobbyists or corporate consultants. In other words, these were folks whose allegiances to industry trumped their allegiances to their political party.

Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Jim DeMint make the case for why…

That’s souring relationships on the Hill. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the House’s most economically conservative members, says that he’s talking tougher with corporations than ever before. The problem, he argues, is that industry has drifted away from its support of free enterprise. "As long as big business was defending free markets, we didn’t have a problem," he says. The trend now is for individual businesses and industry groups to push for regulation that is structured in such a way that they come out ahead—or make competitors worse off.

Ryan and DeMint believe that the Republican Party bears the blame for the current state of affairs. While in power, Republicans became too used to making bargains with business, such as the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which provided the pharmaceutical industry with a windfall at taxpayers’ expense. As a result, the party got "caught up in trying to win different industries by doing something for them," says DeMint. Now "established firms are used to cutting deals with the party in power."

Free markets are the key driver of prosperity for all and are the foundation this country has been built upon. Cutting deals for regulations that promote one industry or one company over another has nothing to do with either capitalism or free markets.