WASHINGTON -- This weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the invention of the first working laser. Today, lasers can be found almost everywhere, from telephone lines to cutting edge scientific research, supermarket scanners, and even cat toys.

The first laser light was produced on May 16, 1960 at the Hughes Research Lab in Malibu, California when Theodore Maimen switched on his fist-sized device that flashed a bright red spot onto a photo-detector. Since then, lasers have become smaller, more powerful, and ubiquitous in modern technology.

"It's the invisible wheel. We so take it for granted now," said Tom Baer, the executive director of the Stanford Photonics Research Center, Palo Alto, California. "Half the [U.S] gross domestic product is impacted substantially by the laser."

This article examines the impact of the emerging model of open innovation on state public policy, particularly the practice of technology-based economic development in weak research and development (R&D) states. Open innovation describes the nascent practice of firms using knowledge created outside their boundaries and also marketing ideas they would not commercialize themselves. Firms engaging in open innovation thrive on knowledge spillovers, and weak R&D regions could benefit from this model through the creation of Marshallian externalities. It is therefore interesting to ask whether weak R&D states take advantage of this model. This case study analysis shows that states involved in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research partially support the emerging open innovation paradigm. All states have science and technology strategies and actively support and invest in their higher education infrastructure. They show variation in their support for university–industry partnerships, entrepreneurship, capital access, commercialization, and technology transfer. None of the states, however, uses the open innovation framework explicitly.

The TRIPS agreement came into force in 1995, the BRIC countries have significant reforms in intellectual property systems adopted. A relatively new definition component analysis industrial economy is "creative industries", in which creativity and intellectual property as input and output. Worldwide, agreed that mapping the creative industries are indeed "economically significant" legitimate and comparable to other high-profileSectors with regard to their contribution to income, employment and trade.

The concept of intellectual property in BRIC
Brazil adopted its first intellectual property in 1887. Brazil meets international standards of protection of intellectual property. Brazil is a signatory to various conventions, treaties and agreements that define fundamental, internationally recognized for the protection of intellectual property rights, including, inter alia, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Brazil is also a member ofTrade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The new Industrial Property Law entered into force in May 1996. This law has led the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office system up to par with international standards specified in travel. Intellectual property protection in Brazil and also the copyright of software and some secondary laws.

In Russia, the concept of intellectual property such as patents primarily to be understood in the times of the former Soviet Union. The owner of the patent andas all innovations had always been. The concept of intellectual property in Russia has already changed radically and is now seen in intellectual property consisting of patents, trademarks, ways of utility, design, domain names and copyrights. After 10 years in Russia the independence of the country began to come into line with international standards on intellectual property protection. Today much work is needed to be done to bring Russia to the international level.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group convened its seventh annual CEO Business Climate Summit on April 19 in Menlo Park. One panel discussion on America's competitiveness first featured White House senior energy adviser Matt Rogers and venture capitalist John Doerr, focusing on energy policy. They were then joined by CEOs Aart de Geus of Synopsys and Dave DeWalt of McAfee. This is an edited transcript of the discussion.

Panel members

Matt Rogers, senior adviser to the secretary for Recovery Act Implementation, U.S. Department of Energy

John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

Aart de Geus, CEO and co-founder, Synopsys

Dave DeWalt, CEO, McAfee

Barbara Marshman, editorial page editor, San Jose Mercury News, moderator

Then, competition arrived, and the simple pizza pie simply wasn’t enough. Delivery companies began a string of innovations. Hand-tossed, think-crust, “Chicago-style,” stuffed crust and “Meat Lovers” were among the pies du jour. Then one chain rolled out cheesy sticks. Another offered various desserts. Then, a line of pasta – in plain tin pans, or in bread bowls.

Most recently, the New Product Development team at Domino’s posed a remarkable innovation: It created what it called a “better” pizza. Aggressive marketing hyped its culinary research into its new taste, and the company rolled out its new pie – seemingly same as the old pie, only tastier.

Innovation in the delivery pizza category is as circular a process as pizzas are round. This doesn’t include sit-down pizza restaurants, like California Pizza Kitchen or the string of “coal-fired” pizza chains.

Intel CEO Paul Otellini on hosting the International Science and Engineering Fair and the global economy.

Before the revolutionary upheavals of the late 18th century, political leaders did not always look kindly upon innovation. It implied a break with tradition, the introduction of newness into political and religious affairs, and was thus often viewed with mistrust. Such times, of course, are long past. Today’s political leaders actively seek innovation—albeit a narrower form of newness in technological innovation—as the basis for fostering jobs, prosperity, and economic growth.

The study of innovation has often happened at two disconnected units of analysis. Economists, sociologists, and political scientists have generally seen innovation from a high altitude where it is removed from the small-scale processes that, for instance, move discoveries from the lab bench into the marketplace. These scholarly models hold that academic research has over time become more interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and entrepreneurial. As John Ziman argued in his 2000 book Real Science, research after 1960 became a “wealth-creating technoscientific motor for the whole economy.”

If you encounter a new word, what do you normally do? Do you ignore it or try to see its definition in the dictionary? For smart individuals, they are certainly looking forward to the new meaning of the word. If you are engaged in business enterprises, perhaps you want to define entrepreneur. Are you an entrepreneur?

It is a specific definition of entrepreneur. According to most dictionaries, an entrepreneur an entrepreneur who finances or initiates emerging commercial enterprises is. Basically, he or she is the person that provides for the capital of the company. However, the provision of capital alone is not enough to be an entrepreneur. What is it?

It is because some people invest in a particular company prefers, but that person can be someone else take care of all business activities.

For the start up, every person and every advisor you need to hire represents a critical commitment of your company's available time and cash.  In essence, you trade those resources for the knowledge and skill (intellectual assets), contacts (social capital), and the pure energy, ideas, and actions you expect that person to bring to your budding organization. 

But what if you could get some of same resources without having to give up any of your precious start-up funds?

You can - if you put your customers - and those who you'd like to have as customers - on your team!  Here are three ways to start:

1. Stop thinking of customers as 'them'.  Customers are stakeholders who can help you move and shape your vision.  Try posing a provocative question that will trigger thoughtful responses.  For instance, my company created a completely new way to predict how people perform in teams--but we were struggling to find a way to properly present it. So I started asking, 'Why do people say they want team players, and then hire people who aren't?'  Instant reaction!  We not only got some great feedback, but some of our customers even went out and recruited other customers for us! 

WHAT HAS HAPPENED:

The full U.S. House of Representatives is likely to vote on reauthorization of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 as early as next Wednesday, May 13.  ASTRA believes that bipartisan support for this vital legislation is important and most timely, given the nation's economic woes.

The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 is a bill that lays the basis for sustained funding increases in our nation's often neglected science, engineering and technology resources for three key agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST).

ASTRA has supported efforts like the COMPETES Act for a decade.  Finally, the benefits of adequate federal R&D investments in our science and engineering ecosystems are being recognized across the political spectrum. 

Republicans, Democrats and Independents in Congress have all voted for legislation like COMPETES in the past.  That's because they realize that job creation, global competitiveness, innovation, STEM education, national security and other issues directly relate back to our country's federal R&D investments.

Now, more than ever, our R&D investments are needed to keep up with aggressive overseas competitors - whether they be governments or private entities determined to either widen their leads, or overcome the current position of U.S.-based industry, small businesses, academic institutions, and workers...

Please review our ASTRA's extensive materials on these topics. They provide fact-based reasons to support this widely-held and nonpartisan view. See: www.usinnovation.org and www.aboutastra.org 

For specific details about what the COMPETES bill would do for the nation's science, engineering and technology infrastructure and workforce, see http://www.usinnovation.org/files/UpdateAmerica%20COMPETESforCVD2010.pdf

(Santa Barbara, Calif.) -- -- An international team of scientists has discovered striking similarities between the human brain, the nervous system of a worm, and a computer chip. The finding is reported in the journal PloS Computational Biology today.

"Brains are often compared to computers, but apart from the trivial fact that both process information using a complex pattern of connections in a physical space, it has been unclear whether this is more than just a metaphor," said Danielle Bassett, first author and a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Physics at UC Santa Barbara.

The team of scientists from the U.S., the U.K., and Germany has uncovered novel quantitative organizational principles that underlie the network organizations of the human brain, high performance computer circuits, and the nervous system of the worm, known as nematode C. elegans. Using data that is largely in the public domain, including magnetic resonance imaging data from human brains, a map of the nematode's nervous system, and a standard computer chip, they examined how the elements in each system are networked together.

So...you need additional angel or venture funding.

In the current economic climate, more companies have to hold on longer, and spend even more carefully, to survive until things improve. And, they will improve. They will improve...they will improve...they will improve. Repeat three times, three times a day and I'm sure our cosmic energy will combine to make it so.

In the meantime, if you find you need more investor funding to keep your promising enterprise going, where is the first place you should turn? Your existing angel or venture investors, of course. They have numerous reasons to invest in a follow-on round and there are many reasons that it is beneficial to you as well. The most obvious for both parties, is that you already know each other. Hopefully it will be unnecessary to re-familiarize your investors with your company. You've been providing quality, detailed, cross-functional investor updates on a regular basis right?

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will personally keep an eye on the construction of a state-of-the-art innovation center in Skolkovo outside Moscow. A statement to this effect was made on Thursday by Viktor Vekselberg, head of the Russian section of a council responsible for overseeing the Skolkovo project. Vekselberg said that he earlier met with a handful of foreign businessmen and scientists, who signaled their readiness to contribute to the project’s implementation. Among them, ex-Intel chief Craig Barrett, who also agreed to oversee the construction of the Skolkovo innovation hub, which many have already called a Russian Silicon Valley.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council’s “Business Tax Index 2010” ranks the states from best to worst in terms of the costs of their tax systems on entrepreneurship and small business. The Index pulls together 16 different tax measures, and combines those into one tax score that allows the 50 states and District of Columbia to be compared and ranked. Here are this year’s top 10 state tax systems, according to the study.

 

Some people are born wealthy enough to take the massive risk which funding a new business entails. Others get seed money from brilliant pitches, luck or connections.

And then, there's the rest of us.

Funding a business, or more precisely, risking losing money when starting a business, is the single largest obstacle for most entrepreneurs. Even good ideas can take time to fine-tune or pan out.

That's why I have the most respect for the 'street-stall entrepreneur' one finds in developing countries. This is the individual who starts out with absolutely nothing, and shamelessly sells any product they can from the street to make his living.

Last we looked at the private markets where Facebook stock is traded, the company had an implied valuation of well over $22 billion.

That means lots of Facebook employees, ex-employees, investors and other stakeholders are, on paper, wealthy enough that their children and their children's children will never have to work.

And when Facebook finally IPOs sometime in 2011 or 2012, that paper wealth is going turn into spendable cash.

If you’re in the green technology industry and are in need of financial backing, now might be a good time to ask the U.S. Department of Energy for a few bucks: around the same time the DOE distributed $62 million among various concentrating solar power (CSP) projects, DOE Under Secretary Kristina Johnson announced another $60 million will be made available via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support innovations toward clean energy technology being made by small businesses.

Innovation Question Entrepreneurs are usually highly creative and innovative, but many innovative people are not entrepreneurs. Since it takes a team of people to build a great company, the challenge is to find that small percentage of innovative people, and then nurture the tendency, rather than stifle it.

A while back I read a book titled The Rudolph Factor, by Cyndi Laurin and Craig Morningstar, which is all about finding the bright lights that can drive innovation in your business. The story most specifically targets big companies, like Boeing, but the concepts are just as applicable to a startup with one or more employees.

The core message is that real innovation and competitive advantage are more people-based than product or process-based. Every good entrepreneur needs a people-centric focus to ferret out creativity and innovation in his team, and to build a sustainable competitive advantage.

The undergraduate offerings at Stanford University’s School of Engineering could be engaged in a tug of war.

On one side is the foundation of math, science and major-specific courses students need to earn a degree now, or four years from now. On the other, the skills, curiosity and bent toward problem solving that students will need in their first job and in the job they get 20 or 40 years into their careers.

But, with a rope between them, the battle would end up a draw, at least in the eyes of James D. Plummer, who has been the school’s dean since 1999. “What we’re trying to do in the engineering school is … taking the traditional picture of an engineering classroom,” he said at a university faculty meeting earlier this year, pointing at a black and white photo of students taking notes in a lecture hall, “and turning it into something that looks a little more like this” -- a man, in vivid color, bungee jumping over craggy terrain.

BOULDER, Colo. — Sixty engineers, entrepreneurs and financiers were sipping yerba mate tea at a coffee shop down the street from a bong-and-lingerie store on a recent sunny Tuesday in Boulder, and discussing how Boulder — usually seen as an enclave of hippies, marijuana dispensaries and rock climbers — has become a hotbed of capitalism.

Experienced tech entrepreneurs and investors sat alongside people who had just moved to Boulder hoping to start a company in this small city, which is breeding tech start-ups at an attention-grabbing rate. In the first three months of the year, 11 Colorado tech start-ups raised $57 million in venture capital, solidifying Boulder’s place among the country’s up-and-coming tech centers.

“In Silicon Valley, you’re a small fish in a huge pond, and it didn’t seem as collaborative and a lot more corporate,” said Chad McGimpsey, who moved to Boulder a month ago and is now a regular at the twice-a-month coffee club. “Here, you’re a big fish in a small pond. Plus, there are the mountains.”