DC's One-Sided, In-the-Tank 'Think Tank' Discussions

A joke amongst those who understand the joke that is Washington, DC is:

“We sincerely hope you enjoy the dynamic choices and myriad policy possibilities afforded you by DC’s Uni-Party.” 

Because there is, in actuality, only one national political Party.  Call it The DC Party.  Or The Establishment Party.  Or the Cronyism Party.  Or the Deep State Party.  Or The Swamp Party.

No matter the name, nothing happens in DC - that doesn’t benefit DC and its Party members.  That means Big Government sloshing massive cronyism to Big Business - with heaping helpings of kickbacks to DC’s Party members.

We’ve seen an increasing disinterest by these hacks in hiding or even obfuscating this criminal arrangement.  They’ve learned We the Sheeple don’t really, actually care that they’re corrupt - so why should they care about hiding it?   

But there are dozens of legacy DC institutions dedicated to the increasingly-less-necessary art of the cover-up. 

DC’s “think tank” community is a large remora - feeding off the very generous scraps delivered by the Great White Shark that is DC’s Big Government-Big Business cabal. 

The “think tanks” have one job - to make what DC does look good.  And until DC decides the veneer of “think tank” approval is no longer necessary - and pulls the funding plug?  The show will go on.     

Because - to quote Governor Lepetomane from the eminently great flick “Blazing Saddles”:

“We’ve got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!” 

And so it was on January 25th.  When the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) hosted their event “Should Congress Pass President Biden’s Tech Agenda?

ITIF President Robert D. Atkinson moderated the event.  There were SIX panelists - which seems like an awful lot for a 1-1/2 hour event.  Especially so in DC - where everyone LOVES to hear themselves bloviate. 

It seems like even more than a lot when all six - and the moderator - all basically agreed on basically everything they discussed.

Why did everyone agree on everything?  The subject was Tech - so, of course, Big Tech was supremely over-represented.  Enjoy the MASSIVE Uni-Party vibe here…. 

One panelist: Jules Polonetsky - Executive Director and Co-Chair of the Future of Privacy Forum.  Whose supporters include Amazon, Google, Facebook’s Meta, Apple and Twitter - plus Communist China’s Zoom.

Another panelist: Gary Shapiro - President and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association.  Whose members include Amazon, Google, Facebook’s Meta, Apple - all “Core Members” - and    “Regular Member” Twitter.  Plus Communist China’s AliBaba (Regular).

Another panelist: Linda Moore - President and CEO of Technet.  Whose members include Amazon, Google, Facebook’s Meta, Apple - plus Communist China’s Zoom. 

Another panelist: Jason Oxman - President and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council.  Whose members include Amazon, Google, Facebook’s Meta and Apple - plus Communist China’s Zoom.  

Another panelist: Steve DelBianco - President and CEO of NetChoice.  Whose membership includes Amazon, Google, Facebook’s Meta and Twitter - plus Communist China’s AliBaba and TikTok.

Another panelist: Adam Kovacevich - Founder and CEO of the Chamber of Progress.  Whose partners include Amazon, Google and Apple. 

So here’s the Big Tech representation tally for the event’s six panelists:


Amazon:                                 6

Google:                                   6

Facebook’s Meta:                 5

Apple:                                     5

Twitter:                                  3

Communist China

Zoom:                                     3

AliBaba:                                 2

TikTok:                                   1

Six panelists.  Six get money from Amazon and Google - five from Facebook and Apple. 

That’s diversity - DC-style. 

Oh: As if I had to tell you - event host ITIF’s supporters include....Amazon, Google, Facebook’s Meta and Apple.  Shocker.

So you don’t need to watch a video or read a transcript of the event.  You already know everything that was said.  It was all Big Tech - all the time.   

There was one interesting incident.  A lack of self-awareness - or brazen self-cover-up - so profound?  It boggles what’s left of the national mind. 

Right at the 29-minute mark, TechNet’s Linda Moore said this:

“President (Joe) Biden said ‘The US is the most innovative country in the world.’  Well, is it?  You know, when the Bloomberg (Innovation) Index debuted in 2013 - the US was #1.  In the latest Bloomberg Index, we dropped to #11.  And there are a lot of reasons for that.” 

Welcome to the party, pal….

Intellectual Property Crisis: U.S. Drops Out of the Top Ten in Innovation Ranking

Chief amongst the reasons for this?  Big Government cronyism for Big Tech.  Which we have been vociferously decrying throughout.

The US Has Institutionalized Big Tech’s Intellectual Property Theft:

“Most unfortunately, the US legal system also enables IP theft….How did our government do this?

“‘How the America Invents Act Harmed Inventors:

“‘The (2013) America Invents Act (AIA) was the single worst disaster in the 226 year history of the U.S. patent system. The AIA did very real damage – enough to put many inventors out of business and discourage many others….

“‘The real damage was hidden in the AIA’s creation of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and three new procedures to invalidate issued patents – Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method Review (CBM).’”

“What is PTAB, you ask?

“‘PTAB: DCs Latest Unaccountable, Power Grabbing Government Board:

“‘DC has reverse-engineered the government entity responsible for issuing patents – to now destroy patents. Patents that government entity its own self had issued – are now destroyed by that same government entity.’

“‘Angry Inventors Accuse Patent Office’s Appeals Board of Favoring Big Tech:

“‘Since its creation by Congress in 2012, the board has angered the inventing community, which says the review process is biased.

“‘One judge, for example, represented Apple Inc. in private practice and then ruled in favor of the tech giant 17 times after joining the court….

“'Eyebrows were raised this summer when a lawyer representing the patent office in a federal court appeal of a board decision acknowledged that the agency had added extra judges to reviews in order to achieve the desired outcome….’

“Despite grandiose claims to the contrary, the PTAB was created for Big Tech:

“‘PTAB is used almost exclusively by large multinational corporations to attack patents of much smaller competitors. Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Intel, Comcast, and Cisco are top filers. Smaller companies occasionally attempt to use the PTAB, but usually adds a lot of expense without resolving the dispute….

“'PTAB adds an average of $450,000 for each challenge filed. Most disputes involved multiple patents, so the additional cost usually exceeds $1M. If the inventor survives PTAB, they have to fend off similar challenges in the regular court.’

“$450,000 per filing is loose pocket change for Big Tech. It is a crushing fortune for individual inventors.

“And what Big Tech companies often do is team up against a patent holder. They each file the same PTAB challenge, worded slightly differently, over and over and over. Bringing the ‘cheaper’ PTAB cost into the tens of millions. Thereby drowning the patent holder - and forcing him to forfeit his patent defense…and his patent.

“Shocker: The PTAB keeps ruling for Big Tech. An AWFUL lot:

“‘PTAB invalidates 84% of patents they review. In a regular court the number is about 29%. That comparison is even worse considering that regular courts allow 5 types of challenges (eligibility, novelty, obviousness, definition, and inequitable conduct) while PTAB only allows 2 types of challenges (novelty and obviousness).’”

Gee, I can’t imagine why the US dropped out of the Top Ten.  I kid - I’m a kidder. 

But I would bet all the money in my pockets Big Tech - and their “think tank” shills - can. 

Or could - if they were being honest. 

And weren’t making trillions of dollars - by not being honest.  


Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Seton Motley