11/25/03
13:41:35 |
Name withheld by request |
Norman, OK
Msg 61 of 99 |
The SBIR program needs to continue being focused on the
provision of capital to the 'island' innovator based on
his/her idea's scientific merit and commercial
viability. The function of the SBIR program is to
provide capital for highly risky innovative concepts
that the VC organizations abhor. The VC's currently
already benefit from the SBIR program as they often get
to invest in the Phase III phase (reduced risk) of an
inventor's product or idea. In essence, the subversion
of the SBIR program to suit the demands of the VC's
will derail the development of innovative ideas from
individual inventors and will only contribute to
additional subsidization of VC investments, which
already benefit from various tax subsidies. Come on
guys & gals, let�s be nice and play fair, giving every
bloke a chance to fairly compete
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
 Return |
11/25/03
15:13:29 |
Dan Pankowsky |
Nashville, TN
Msg 62 of 99 |
| Dear Sirs,
Thank you for this forum. The original intent of the
SBIR/STTR program was to provide initial capital to
small ventures that may not have other avenues of
funding available. By definition, companies already
owned by venture capitalists no longer fit this
definition and should therefore be excluded. It is
attractive to have a project validated by the
SBIR/STTR review process, but there are other avenues
available for this kind of review, particularly
ordinary, peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Companies with access to capital can already fund
such studies. The SBIR/STTR program allows those
that don't access to the same.
Thank you.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
11/25/03
19:36:23 |
Name withheld by request |
Tucson, AZ
Msg 63 of 99 |
If the SBIR rules are changed to allow VC owned and
controlled organizations to compete for SBIR funding,
then it is no longer SBIR funding and it should be
called VC's welfare.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
12/02/03
01:16:37 |
Name withheld by request |
Charlotte, NC
Msg 64 of 99 |
| If the current SBIR program is changed, large global
corporations will begin to compete for critical
dollars set aside for small businesses. These
corporations often invest heavily in VC firms and play
a leading role in investments. With the participation
of large global corporations in the US SBIR fund, the
dynamics of innovation in these critical small
companies will dramatically change.
As globalization of technology development continues
push forward, it is important the United States keep
its technology edge. It is well documented that small
businesses nurture disruptive technologies. The
continued US development of disruptive technologies is
required for technical superiority and economic
growth. Small businesses take risks without worrying
about rapidly returning money to their stockholders.
Small businesses pursue small niche markets where
disruptive technologies often occur. Small businesses
are nimble and rapidly change to changing market
dynamics. VC firms and their global corporate
affiliations need large markets with rapid returns on
investment. These criteria often do not translate
into world leading technologies, but technologies that
will make money for the short term.
The current guidelines for the SBIR fund allows for
novel disruptive technologies to be nurtured. If
this nurturing is not allowed to occur, it is highly
likely other nimble global innovators will begin to
compete with the US for technology leadership.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
12/02/03
14:32:24 |
Steve Ebstein |
Wellesley, MA
Msg 65 of 99 |
| As I understand it, a major reason for the
establishment of the SBIR program was to mandate
access of small businesses to R&D dollars that would
otherwise get swallowed by large companies with better
access and marketing to federal agencies (think DoD
and big aerospace). Judged by this standard, the
proposed rule change clearly violates the spirit of
the program.
Things are murkier if one is considering economic
impact of SBIRs. It seems to me cases can be made pro
and con the proposed rule change. However, since my
experience is that government R&D managers do not view
their job as maximizing ROI on the national
investment - they simply want to advance technologies
that further their agency's mission, I don't see this
as a compelling reason to produce (and cook) the
relevant statistics.
If a small business is successful enough to attract a
buyer or investor that takes them out of the SB
category, good for them. If they want to bend the
rules so they can compete for SBIRs, shame on them.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
12/03/03
08:38:44 |
Daniel P. Bednarik, Ph.D. |
Gaithersburg, MD
Msg 66 of 99 |
The original mandate of the SBIR program never
included exclusivity towards either government
funding OR venture capital. The point of this program
was to foster creative development paths while
providing seed money to facilitate such activities.
|
|
| Vote: YES | |
| Return |
12/04/03
10:22:37 |
Simon Goldbard |
Mountain View, CA
Msg 67 of 99 |
This new strict interpretation of the rules leaves out
probably 40% of companies that need the money must.
Just because these companies are venture backed does
not mean that there are not struggling to find
additional funding to keep going. In the current
venture enviroment even public companies are competing
for the same funds (venture and federal). This rule
does not make any sense!! Some of the must promising
companies are left out of a vital source of funding in
the past. A soulution would be may be to limit the
amount of money that can be granted, but to eliminate
it altogether does not make any sense.
|
|
| Vote: YES | |
| Return |
12/04/03
14:08:20 |
Kevin Johnson |
, NC
Msg 68 of 99 |
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
12/08/03
04:02:21 |
Roger J. Molitor |
Titusville, FL
Msg 69 of 99 |
Chromalux was the recipient of an SBIR and we would
never have gotten the award if large corporations
would have been allowed to circumvent the rules by
funding a token small business for the sole reason of
getting to the SBIR funds set aside for small
businesses.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
12/10/03
12:14:57 |
Marcene Sonneborn |
Syracuse, NY
Msg 70 of 99 |
Allowing VC-owned and controlled small businesses into
the program would compromise the long-standing
benefits of this program, especially helping small
businesses to obtain support for high risk
technologies and projects that are not directly ready
for commercialization. If a company has attracted VC
attention, it is already proven feasibile just by the
VC interest. VCs do not invest in technologies
without a strong indication that a commercial - and
large commercial market exists. If Congress wants to
help pharmaceutical companies get more support for
R&D, create a new program started for that purpose.
Also, allowing VC-companies to participate will tip
the balance in favor of biotech companies, to the
detriment of other technologies that might solve the
same problems but in a more innovative way, and that
are not able to attract venture capital because the
technology has yet to be proven. Changing the SBA's
policy on this would devastate the SBIR program and
turn it into a true corporate welfare program for
pharmaceutical companies. Protect the small
innovative business that is working on an unproven but
potentially revolutionary technology or product and
leave the program as it is.
|
|
| Vote: NO | |
| Return |
| PREVIOUS NEXT |