Here we go - the insanely maximalist interpretation of copyright law by the Federal Circuit, with its concomitant ludicrously restrictive idea of fair use, now goes to the Supremes. The DoJ had actually argued against the idea of the High Court's taking up of this appeal (on grounds that this case was not the proper one for the Court to use to clarify these issues). I couldn't disagree more. The Federal Circuit Court has been positively adamant in its rigid views, right down to second-guessing how the jury rendered the key facts, and the case therefore is a very compelling one for a better assessment to be made by justices who are not so fixated in their views as the Federal Circuit has been. This area of the law is critical to the whole idea of inter-operability going forward and it is welcome to see that the Court will be deciding it sometime this term.
My prior comment at the time of the Federal Circuit decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20064289
Silicon Valley was founded in a spirit of freedom and flexibility but that spirit is clearly and dangerously on the wane insofar as the political environment surrounding the Valley is concerned.
By the 1970s, American enterprise was in decline, a victim of the "big government/big business/big labor" trends glamorized by establishment types of that day. What this did was take away choice and flexibility.
Tech changed all that and it did so from the heart of Silicon Valley. Tech arose from a spirit of freedom and flexibility. Founders would get an idea and would have countless ways of experimenting with what they could do with it with the aim of building a venture. Many of the most wildly successful ventures came out of nowhere. No central committee could have planned for them. No overlords of big business could have had the imagination or risk-taking fortitude to push them at the expense of their established cash cows of that day. No union could comfortably impose rigid work rules onto such amorphous ventures (the first thing Intel workers did even after the company succeeded was to reject unionization). No minimum wage or overtime rules applied. Benefits packages of the type widely deployed in the analog-based large businesses of that day were unheard of.
Regulators and taxers of that era continually tried to realize their vision of locking people into situations by which they would have guaranteed security, ossifying the mature businesses over which they had control, but tech simply outran them through innovation. And, in time, upended them by disrupting their industries through innovation and risk-taking.
Today, the spirit of Silicon Valley has changed and is yielding to a belief system by which the overlords of politics believe they can dictate outcomes that will give people locked-in security forever. Want to do something as an independent to earn a livelihood? Sorry, AB5 forbids that and will penalize the hell out of any venture that seeks to use fleelancing and flexibility as a foundation for innovation and growth. Your choice to act an an independent is frozen out by dictates that, if you act at all to make a living, you must do it within rigid systems that guarantee minimum compensation, regulate overtime, prescribe minimum guaranteed benefits, and the like. If this kills opportunities, no problem: there will be other rules that guarantee basic income, limit the rent you have to pay, and otherwise regulate society such that people are guaranteed a risk-free existence courtesy of decrees enacted by political proclamation.
This new mindset is precisely the one of the 1970s-era leaders who managed to choke off innovation and growth in old-line businesses and gave a massive opening to tech innovators, particularly those in Silicon Valley.
pg's modeling of the effects of a wealth tax is spot on. And it confirms that such a tax is an innovation-killing idea that would destroy the spirit of Silicon Valley. Of course, tech innovation will not cease. It will just move elsewhere to escape the tax. Europe in the 1990s had a couple of dozen or more countries that imposed wealth taxes. Today it has three, if I recall. There is a reason for that. It is a highly pernicious tax that kills enterprise and that veers from a capitalist (even progressive) philosophy into one that is directly of a Marxist/communist variety that has left so many nations in rubble once fully implemented. Smart, innovative people are not going to stick around for the con game. They will leave.
I have watched Silicon Valley grow and flourish for decades now and have been directly involved in working with thousands of entrepreneurs who have been a part of it. There have been a lot of political changes over those decades but one thing remained constant: the foundational thinking in California always assumed a capitalistic structure. Once that is abandoned, Silicon Valley will be no more.
I know that the vast majority of HN'ers are progressive in their thinking and we all can have our own ideas about what makes for a good and just society. I am not commenting on that here.
There is a line that cannot be crossed, however, without killing the Valley itself and all that it stands for. The wealth tax clearly crosses that line and, if things are allowed to go that way, the consequences may not be what you expect them to be. It doesn't take much to switch from a tax of .4% on assets over $30M (bad as that is in itself) to a tax of a much higher rate on a much lower threshold of assets. Once that monster is unleased, who knows where it will go. It will be fundamental transformation of the Valley, and not a good one.
As I said, just my two cents.