Why Can't Government Be More Like the Internet? - Page 2

Page 2 of 2

Can Web 2.0 launch Government 2.0?

Schmidt is wearing many hats these days. As an economic adviser to President-elect Obama and the chairman of the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank, his interests range far beyond the pressure of maintaining an investor-friendly balance sheet at one of the world's most prominent tech companies.

While Schmidt reminded the audience that he was not appearing as a representative of Obama's team, he praised some of Obama's policies and president-elect's use of technology to spread his message and solicit new ideas.

For instance, he cited Obama's weekly radio address for the Democratic Party, which was also recently posted on YouTube, where it has invited comments, discussion and response videos.

"It seems to me that you want to encourage debate," Schmidt said. For the average citizen, "basic information that government uses is not available. You still can't fundamentally see the information sources that are in use."

In that spirit, Schmidt imagines the government moving in a more Web-friendly direction, embracing Web 2.0 technologies like blogs and YouTube-style videos and live-streaming all public hearings. That could also entail publishing its data in a format that could be indexed by search engines like Google.

Schmidt held up the U.S. Patent Office as an example. One of the critical shortcomings of the system has been the staggering backlog of the pending patents. As a way to better cope with that backlog, however, the Patent Office is conducting a trial program through which it taps into the wisdom of the crowds.

In the program, pending patents can be viewed online, so interested parties can comment on their merits or shortcomings -- sort of a prescreening process so patent officers have some critical information when they come to evaluate the invention.

Of course, those inventions begin further up the pipe. Patent reform, for instance, sits high on Google's policy agenda, although major legislation that Google backed didn't clear Congress this session.

Schmidt, who made the delicate balance between the free market and prudent regulatory policy a theme of his talk, touched on another hot-button issue for the tech industry: tax credits and government funding for research and development.

[cob:Pull_Quote]Just like the Internet itself grew out of a government-funded project, many of the core breakthroughs that find their way to market years down the road come from universities and national laboratories. But funding is a perennial issue.

"The situation in R&D in the last few years has not been good. It seems obvious, but let me state it: Why do we fund R&D? Because no one else does," Schmidt said. "It's actually pretty simple. Businesses by law have to serve their shareholders. They're not going to fundamentally invest at the level of pure research. It makes no sense for them."

The proposition is simple for Schmidt. The next wave of innovation, with all the economic spoils it will bring, will either come from the United States or one of its economic rivals overseas -- whoever's willing to spend for the research.

Schmidt hit on another pain point for the tech industry: foreign workers. Tech companies have lobbied for years to raise the cap on the visas allotted to foreign workers, known as H1-B visas -- a cap that aims to protect the jobs of U.S. workers.

In many cases, however, those workers come to study at U.S. universities, but struggle to secure the visas they need to stay here and work, Schmidt said -- a condition that left him fuming.

"We train these people, we bring them to the country. We have the best university system in the world, bar none, and then we won't give them the visa to work here -- where they would then pay lots of taxes," he said. "Help me with this reasoning."

"It's bizarre. It's disgusting. Sorry, I have a strong opinion."