The problem we see is similar to how others have represented a specific problem.

Core demand side innovators may not control the lives and destiny of all people everywhere, and yet they very often act as if they have this expectation.  This is just bad behavior, evolving out of this misplaced form of capitalism we are enduring.  The notion that some, in fact a very few, should have control over others is just contrary to our notion of national democracy.  We see the same type of behavior in the December 9, 2008 congressional testimony of the former CEOs of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.  These CEOs claim no responsibility for not seeing that housing was being artificially over priced due to a number of market forces.  Government oversight failed to protect the public interest, and the consequences are profound.  The reasoning of a twelve year old would conclude that the cost of building and acquiring land was far less than the prices that the market was paying for completed houses.  The concept of waste and fraud clearly was and is involved.

Business CEO, like venture capitalists, are like a school of fish, and as the CEOs in this testimony remark; this is how being a CEO works.  However, what should have been obvious issues of public trust were compromised in the pursuit of personal compensation.  This was and is the golden rule of business.

The innovator has been subjugated to the behavior imposed on the category of all innovators.  This behavior looks for short term results, consistent performance, simple language that a third grader would easily understand.  The result has been the absolute blockage of all innovations that are defined in a new paradigm, and the de facto rejection that there could be a paradigm that is not exactly the same as the current paradigm.  Any paradigm or application area that might seem to threaten any existing status quo must be avoided.

A new era is rapidly approaching, an era where the control over innovation and capital may not be used to limit the Constitutionally protected rights of individual.  These Constitutional rights should be sufficient to protect us from institutional fraud and predatory practice.  We have not be so protected, particularly over the past eight years.  To return to democratic principles, innovators and investors have to learn, or be made to conform, to share just control with consumers.  Each participant must acknowledge the needed contribution of others and the contribution that our society order has given to that individual. 

Some, in the current environment, understand this intuitively but do not act accordingly.  The change that is needed is a change in this environment.  To return to our democratic roots, the federal government must step in and must change the rules by which innovation in information theory is owned or not owned.  Why should anyone assert that government is here to protect the rights of these entities called corporations?  The government is the People.  The Constitutional rights are rights of People.  The assertion that all process and software patents are reducible to a small set of mathematical principles may be asserted by the federal government, and in this way establish a common foundation for new markets.  This will settle the issue of ownership over the medium of communication. 

This control issue has arisen because of the absence of a socially sound process for national capitalization of innovation. NSF does not work. NIST re-enforces the mess that is information technology.   The agencies are clueless.   Business messed up and continues to mess up, as we outline in the White Paper *<*>.

The change we seek is a change in who is in control, as is represented in this PowerPoint *<*>.  This is a message that the transition teams are interested in. Our effort now is to communicate what might be possible given the type of stimulation of basic innovation that has in fact been blocked by a form of monopoly. 

There are many concerns that business people, venture capitalists, core innovators just do not see.  They do not see because they refuse to see.  They, as individuals, do not allow credit to be given to others and in this way perfect the art of taking ownership over what is not theirs.  The legal and financial system supports this theft. It is this reason alone that has held us back, and will continue to hold us back.  A larger force than business interest must step in. 

The national program being proposed is a program that will overcome what are personality flaws, by what ever means, including reducing all software and process IP to pure mathematics and thus to public domain property, as we have conjecturally done with the G patent. 

We intend re-focus my effort on the demand side technology integration as we have proposed for many years.  As discussed in the past, we have the ability to point to any public information as several specific examples of sub-stratum language generation.  However, the use of the sub-stratum model as well as other innovations will be integrated as part of this national project.  As we have stated a number of times, the literature review regarding this notion has a long history including the work done in classified settings in the former Soviet Union, an entity that no longer exists.  This work maps back to Peirce and to Mill's as well as Bacon and others.