These efforts are misguided. Congress should instead support market-based pricing of licensing fees. 

Devices such as smartphones have to comply with numerous standards. In the case of 5G, for example, there are an estimated 100,000 “essential” patents. These are known as standard essential patents. Because device-makers can’t make 5G phones without using these patents, standard essential patents are licensed on the basis of what’s called “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) royalty fees. Determining these FRAND rates is the main source of conflict in the China-EU-U.S. tech fight. 

Starting in 2020, China systematized a provocative approach to standard essential patents. While China’s courts handled infringement cases, they stopped patent holders from simultaneously enforcing their rights in foreign courts, issuing anti-suit injunctions. China also backs up its anti-suit injunctions by fining patent holders $156,845 per day if they fail to comply. Chinese courts tend to rule for below-market FRAND rates, so anti-suit injunctions have the effect of making undervalued standard essential patents a global focal point for foreign courts to follow. 

The EU wasn't having it and filed a dispute against China at the World Trade Organization. Brussels says the anti-suit injunctions constitute a “policy” that violates provisions of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, notably by keeping patent holders from enforcing their rights in a non-Chinese court. 

In opening arguments before the WTO, the EU explained that patent holders have the right to conclude licensing contracts on FRAND terms, free of “measures that restrict, or seek to restrict, the exercise of that right.” This argument is spot on but tinged with irony, since the EU is actually doing even more than China to impair these rights. 

Indeed, in parallel with its WTO case against China, the EU is implementing a standard essential patents regime that’s shockingly political. The plan, set out in a new regulation, is for the EU Intellectual Property Office to regulate most aspects of standard essential patents. Despite lacking expertise in patents, the EUIPO will issue non-binding valuations of FRAND rates, and determine the “essentiality” of each standard essential patent. It will also maintain a registry, the key being that only registered standard essential patents will be enforceable in Europe. 

Why is the EU doing this? Brussels insists that this new regime will help small and medium-sized enterprises more easily navigate the complexities of FRAND rates and avoid becoming entangled in costly litigation. This is nonsense. Of the six device-makers — Huawei and three other Chinese companies, plus Apple and Samsung — none are small-to-medium enterprises, and all are quite experienced at negotiating licenses.  

The EU’s real motivation is the same as China’s: to lower FRAND rates for end-users. The European Commission’s own impact study, for example, touts the benefits of a lower FRAND for auto manufacturers and internet-of-things producers, who have the political upper hand on innovators. 

Not to be left on the sidelines, Congress has mulled over a bill, titled the Standard Essential Royalties Act, that shares several things in common with Europe’s regime. It proposes a new federal court to decide FRAND rates where there are inconsistencies across domestic rulings, or where foreign courts hand down verdicts that disadvantage American patent holders. The bill is clearly written with China’s and Europe’s standard essential patents regimes in mind. 

Would the act help or hurt? Its emphasis on reasserting U.S. sovereignty taps the anti-China mood of Congress. But in truth, it plays into China’s (and the EU’s) hands, the message being that more bureaucracy is the answer to a problem that doesn’t exist. 

Neither China nor the EU offers a shred of evidence that FRAND rates are somehow above market. China’s anti-suit injunctions play well for Huawei and the country’s other three device makers. As for the EU, the European Commission’s own impact study never once shows that FRAND rates are amiss. Similarly, a group of former U.S. government officials did an assessment of the EU’s standard essential patents regime, and couldn’t put their finger on the problem that Brussels thinks it’s solving. Unless the Standard Essential Royalties Act’s proponents can fill in the blanks, Congress shouldn’t create a new court that only affirms China’s and the EU’s efforts to promote non-market licensing of standard essential patents. 

This isn’t to say that Washington should do nothing. The U.S. has reserved third-party rights in the EU’s WTO case against China, and will hopefully voice support for innovation. If the WTO rules for the EU, Beijing will have to change its standard essential patents regime going forward or find itself the target of anti-anti-suit injunctions issued by courts around the world. 

The U.S. could also file a WTO case against the EU. This would likely be a win, as the EU’s new regulation clearly restricts the enforcement of standard essential patents in Europe. Even if Brussels chose not to comply, it would face a domestic political backlash, since there’s already confusion about which directorate-general is calling the shots and strong European opposition to this new standard essential patents regime. 

More fundamentally, the U.S. needs to insist on market-based pricing of standard essential patents to incentivize innovation. Anything else would be a gift to Huawei and a substantial setback for the future of 6G.  

Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, and a global fellow at the Wilson Center’s Wahba Institute for Strategic Competition. Follow him on Twitter @marclbusch. 

Recently, a large radio telescope detected low frequency radio waves from dozens of Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit. These unintended signals emanating from the onboard electronics could interfere with astronomical research.

These same satellites are also increasing the brightness of the night sky, which is significantly affecting optical astronomy research.

The culprit in both cases is satellite constellations, which are groups of artificial satellites working together as a system. The number of small satellites in low Earth orbit started growing rapidly in 2019, when companies such as SpaceX and OneWeb began to build the capacity for global internet coverage. Low orbits mean the signal travel times are shorter, but at such a close range it takes a lot of satellites to cover the planet. Because of shrinking launch costs, the satellite business is booming.

The numbers are eye-popping. There are around 10,000 satellites orbiting over our heads, a number that has doubled in the last four years. By 2030, the number is expected to grow to 75,000. SpaceX alone will account for 40,000 of these satellites as part of its Starlink constellation.

Radio astronomers are worried. Quiet radio skies have allowed some spectacular recent discoveries, such as the first image of a massive black hole. The radio interference from Starlink satellites falls near a frequency of 150 MHz, which is protected for astronomy by the International Telecommunication Union. There are no international regulations governing such emissions from spacecraft.

In contrast, terrestrial radio astronomy is well protected. In 1958, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia benefited from federal legislation that declared 13,000 square miles as the National Radio Quiet Zone. In this vast area, there are no cell towers, and the use of mobile phones and WiFi networks is highly restricted. This radio-quiet “oasis” is unique. Other radio observatories have avoided radio interference by choosing sites in remote parts of Australia, Chile and South Africa.

The good news is that the astronomers and the tech companies are talking. In January, the National Science Foundation and SpaceX signed an agreement to limit interference from the burgeoning number of their satellites.

For most of human history, the stars blazed in a dark night sky. But starting with the Industrial Revolution, and accelerating in the past 50 years, the stars have been disappearing as the population has grown and people have moved into cities flooded with artificial light. In the last decade, the night sky in North America and Europe has been getting brighter by 10 percent per year.

Optical astronomers are sounding the alarm about the impact of satellites on their research. Satellites catch the sun’s light when they are near the horizon and leave ugly streaks across deep images made with large telescopes. For the last 20 years, only 3 percent of Hubble Space Telescopes images were marred by satellite trails, but that could grow to 50 percent by the 2030s. Astronomy’s flagship survey tool, the Vera Rubin Observatory, is about to take data. One-third of its images may be affected.

There is some good news on this front too. In the agreement with the National Science Foundation, SpaceX has committed to changing the design and coatings on its satellites to make them invisible to the naked eye and reduce their impact on sensitive astronomical cameras. Meanwhile, astronomers are eying ever-more remote locations, like Antarctica and the far side of the moon.

Radio interference is an esoteric problem, but the loss of dark skies is something everyone can understand. More than 80 percent of the world and 99 percent of European and North American populations live under light-polluted skies. Most people in the industrialized world have never seen the beautiful arc of the Milky Way. A child born today in an urban or suburban setting will only be able to see 100 stars by his or her 18th birthday.

So enjoy, if you can, the roughly 2,500 stars you can see with the naked eye at a truly dark location. Preserving dark and quiet skies is a way to protect an essential part of our cultural heritage.

Chris Impey is a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona. He is the author of hundreds of research papers on observational cosmology and education and popular books on black holes, the future of space travel, teaching cosmology to Buddhist monks, how the universe began, how the universe will end, and exoplanets. His massive open online courses have enrolled over 400,000 people.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with a bipartisan group of five other senators, introduced extraordinary legislation on July 13, suggesting that the U.S. government or private contractors may secretly possess recovered UFOs and “biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence.”

According to the legislation, “non-human intelligence” is defined as “any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform, regardless of nature or ultimate origin which may be presumed responsible for” UFOs.

Given the decades-long stigma associated with the UFO topic, such stunning language is not included in bipartisan congressional legislation on a mere whim, let alone proposed by the Senate's top lawmaker.

According to a statement accompanying the legislation, the 2017 disclosure of a previously unknown government UFO analysis program spurred a broad congressional investigation of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), the government’s new terminology for UFOs.

The ongoing investigation "uncovered a vast web of individuals and groups” claiming knowledge of secret UAP-related programs and information.

According to Schumer, “the sheer number and variety” of UFO-related claims “led some in Congress to believe that the [U.S. government] was concealing important information regarding UAPs over broad periods of time.” Moreover, as noted in the legislation, “credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government [UFO] records exist that have not been declassified” as required by law.

To that end, Schumer’s legislation establishes an independent nine-member agency to collect, review and declassify UAP records. If passed in its current form, the law would mandate that all government UFO documents “carry a presumption of immediate [public] disclosure.”

The proposed legislation follows explosive allegations by a former intelligence official, David Grusch, that secret UFO retrieval and reverse-engineering programs were illegally hidden from Congress. Importantly, the powerful investigative body that oversees the nation’s intelligence agencies found Grusch’s allegations to be “credible and urgent.” Moreover, the intelligence community’s first inspector general — appointed by President Obama, confirmed by the Senate and now a high-profile attorney in private practice — represented Grusch as he proceeded through the formal whistleblower process.

In an interview with NewsNation, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, corroborated the broad contours of both Grusch’s allegations and Schumer’s bipartisan legislation.

According to Rubio, only one of two remarkable outcomes will ultimately explain recent developments, “Either what [Grusch] is saying is partially true or entirely true, or we have some really smart, educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government who are crazy and are leading us on a goose chase.”

“Most of these people,” Rubio continued, “have held very high clearances and high positions within our government. So, you ask yourself: ‘What incentive would so many people with that kind of qualification — these are serious people — have to come forward and make something up?’”

Asked about the specificity of the allegations, Rubio stated that individuals with “firsthand knowledge or firsthand claims” are “saying to us what you’ve seen out there in the public record, whether it’s about legacy [UFO] programs or about current events.”

Echoing Rubio’s comments and Schumer’s statement, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, stated recently that “all sorts of [UFO whistleblowers] are coming out of the woodwork” and telling Congress that “they’ve been part of this or that [UFO] program.”

According to Gallagher, last year’s enactment of UFO whistleblower protections resulted in “a variety of pretty intense conversations.”

Rubio and Gallagher’s remarkable comments bolster two reports, citing multiple military, intelligence and private sector officials, that defense contractors possess multiple craft of “non-human” origin.

While legislation introduced in June would cut off funding for any secret UFO retrieval and reverse-engineering programs, Sen. Schumer’s proposal goes even further. A provision in the new amendment declares that “any and all recovered [UFOs] and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities” shall be transferred to the U.S. government “in the interests of the public good.”

Moreover, to ensure the eventual release of all government UFO documents and information, the new legislation requires a “Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan.” In short, if the proposed nine-member review board deems any UAP documents too sensitive to release immediately, such records would be subject to a “benchmark-driven plan” with recommendations for the “exact time” that they “may be appropriately disclosed to the public.”

Following a recommendation from the review board, the legislation establishes the president as the “sole and nondelegable authority to disclose” UFO-related records to the public.

Given this elevation of authority directly to the president, it is likely that the Schumer-led Senate coordinated or consulted with the Biden White House before proposing such extraordinary legislation.

Fortunately, the public may not have to wait for the new legislation to become law to learn more about what the U.S. government knows about UAP. According to Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing July 26 featuring roughly half a dozen “superstar” witnesses who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

As Schumer rightly said, “the American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena.” Hopefully, the extraordinary legislation enacted and proposed in recent years, in tandem with open congressional hearings, will get to the bottom of the decades-long UFO mystery.

Marik von Rennenkampff served as an analyst with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, as well as an Obama administration appointee at the U.S. Department of Defense.

The short answer is that yes, it is time.

The antiquated perimeter rule was established at DCA in 1966, to allow Dulles International Airport to grow and compete. Today, this rule needs to be reformed. A lot has changed over the last 60 years. Modernization to allow more flights from both within and beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter of the capital is needed to balance present travel demand and consumer choice and ultimately bring down the cost of airline tickets.

Understanding the supply and demand piece of this debate is easy. What is most perplexing is the misinformation being spread that DCA cannot handle more flights. These claims have become the center of a public relations campaign to protect individual airlines with leading positions in the market, rather than to promote competition, consumer choice and progress in our national airspace system.

As someone who spent his entire career ensuring airplanes could land and take-off safely, I can say with certainty that DCA can handle more capacity. DCA is a busy airport with unique airspace, but the data are clear, and proposed legislation to modernize the perimeter rule accounts for the complexities in the skies around DCA.

In its May 25 memorandum, which the opposition continues to point to, the FAA states “about 20 percent of departures and 22 percent of arrivals experience delays of 67 minutes at DCA.” Yet there are no data in the memorandum to support these numbers.

Using the FAA’s own data, from what’s called the Aviation Systems Performance Metrics (ASPM) — air traffic controllers call it the “Bible” of aviation metrics — we can see that between January 2022 and the end of April 2023, there were nearly 400,000 flights into and out of DCA. Of those, roughly 6,700 (1.7 percent) experienced reportable delays. This is far less than 20 percent of departures and 22 percent of arrivals.

In addition, when delays occur at DCA, there are sufficient periods of time during the day where controllers can safely and efficiently recover delayed aircraft.

The FAA’s own data also reveal there are multiple blocks of time each day where runway and airspace capacity exceed demand and, therefore, air traffic control can safely and efficiently handle additional flights in these windows. Partnering with the FAA, airlines could plug-in flights where reasonable and during slower periods throughout the day when the airport has available capacity. 

When I was hired by the FAA in 1989, the agency was often the punchline of jokes regarding its antiquated technology. I recall sitting in a meeting in 2010 when a leader in the airline industry, holding up an early generation iPhone, stated he held more technology in his hand than was running the computers of the entire Air Traffic System.

At the time, he likely wasn’t exaggerating. But since then, the FAA has made great strides in implementing next-generation tools to advance a more efficient air traffic system. As technology continues to improve, so will the flying experience. Yet the airport that most closely serves our nation’s capital is operating under rules established more than 60 years ago.

It’s time for change. Modernizing the perimeter rule at DCA to add flights can and should be done.

Todd Jacobson is a retired certified professional air traffic controller who served multiple airports in his 30-year tenure with the FAA. He served as general manager of the Denver-Salt Lake District and was responsible for 31 FAA Air Traffic Facilities and federal contract towers.

In the 21st century, it's a crime that Hispanic families and other marginalized populations still have to fight for internet access. Access to information isn't a privilege, it's a basic necessity to survive in our digital world — and it's time that we start thinking of internet access as a human right.

As the world continues its shift to a digital landscape, Hispanic households continue to feel the domino effect of inadequate internet access, especially as the emphasis on digital literacy becomes imperative to participating in our economy. From accessing the latest in telehealth and banking to pursuing job opportunities that will help their households thrive, the upward mobility of Hispanic and other marginalized communities is centered around access to the internet at home.

Programs like the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) bridge the gap between thriving industries and the over 18.5 million enrolled households that would otherwise lack access to adequate and affordable broadband connections, allowing them to participate and excel in educational and professional pursuits. The ACP has been successful in helping underserved communities thrive, but its funding is projected to exhaust by 2024 if Congress doesn’t approve investments that match the need for connectivity in this country.

This is not a partisan issue — it's a civil right. With tens of millions of households still needing access to the internet, failure to continue to fund this program is a failure to provide communities their civil right of connectivity in a digital world. Low-income communities and communities of color will feel the impact of the loss of this program the most.

With more than 33 percent of our households not having adequate internet access at home, it is clear that the Hispanic community continues to be among the ethnic groups that are most affected by the digital divide. It has been projected that 90 percent of the jobs in the United States by 2030 will require digital skills. Hispanic workers represent 14 percent of the workforce yet account for 35 percent of workers with no digital skills. Securing jobs that require digital skills can also increase pay by an average of 45 percent. Access to adequate internet services via the continuation of the ACP can help our communities gain the digital skills they need to leverage the economic opportunities that come with internet access.

Additionally, a decrease in funding may result in an unexpected expense for the families that are currently enrolled in the program and make it virtually impossible for eligible families to reap the benefits of connectivity. Hispanic communities, rural communities and other communities of color are just now starting to get a seat at the table when it comes to connectivity; pulling the rug from underneath our families that are enrolled in the program underscores the mistrust that our communities have about utilizing government services. We can't afford to have Congress take its foot off the gas.

A recent analysis showed that about 14 percent of the country is enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program, and program enrollment grew by half a million households per month in 2023 alone. Considering that nearly 40 percent of U.S. households are eligible for the program, there is still so much more work to be done.

The program has also received bipartisan support, with 64 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of independents and 95 percent of Democrats supporting the continuation of the program. This support, paired with the fact that a portion of the funds were allocated toward serving underserved communities specifically, makes it clear that both parties understand the importance of internet connectivity for all in today’s digital world.

Community outreach efforts paired with targeted funding commitments have helped programs like the ACP grow to reach millions of households. The data about the program's impact and the number of households that have yet to be served speaks for itself.

It's time that Congress takes action to continue investing in programs like the ACP or millions of households will be disconnected from affordable internet. Connectivity is especially imperative as we enter the next election cycle. Our communities deserve to stay informed about best practices to vote and learn more about candidates in real time.

Congress must listen to the groups that have been on the ground connecting with communities that don’t have access to adequate internet to understand how much progress has been made, and how much more work we have left to do to truly achieve a connected country. Anything less than a sustainable funding solution to ACP is a failure of Congress.

Brenda Victoria Castillo is president and CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

Companies like Microsoft, Apple and Amazon have contributed to China’s remarkably rapid development of artificial intelligence capabilities — all at the expense of American interests and security. Following the recent World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, where Alibaba and Huawei showcased a new AI image generator and AI model upgrade, respectively, the repercussions have never been clearer.

The United States and China are in the midst of a high-stakes competition for AI dominance as the technology’s transformation of global political, economic and military power accelerates. The U.S. government has expressed deep concern about the Chinese government’s AI program, outlined the cyber threat posed by China and documented the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) human rights abuses. Even with tensions between the two countries rising, several American companies have doubled down on their AI investments in China.

For example, one recent report revealed that American technology firms and investors — including the investment arms of Intel and Qualcomm — poured $40.2 billion into Chinese AI companies between 2015 and 2021. Meanwhile, AWS continued hiring in China last year to build AI, even though Amazon’s CEO has been publicly arguing that “the U.S. [is] at risk of losing its technology leadership position to China as AI developments advance there.”

Microsoft, meanwhile, has partnered with researchers affiliated with China’s National University of Defense Technology on AI research that could be used for surveillance and censorship. Despite concerns that this technology would further the CCP’s oppressive tactics on its citizens, Microsoft said the research was “published to ensure transparency so that everyone can benefit from our work.”

Indeed, Microsoft Research Asia (MSRA) has been called “the seed capital” from which Chinese AI researchers and companies have developed — and that’s because thousands of MSRA-trained Chinese researchers have gone on to work at some of China’s major AI companies. These include Baidu, which is of course rolling out Ernie, as well as Alibaba and its own ChatGPT rival, Tongyi Qianwen.

This assistance to China is not just an issue for American tech companies; it also encompasses the development of competing tech talent more broadly. Though many Chinese students who study AI in the United States have stayed here to work after graduation — a benefit to our economy — the Chinese government has an estimated 200+ recruitment programs working to bring its homegrown talent and the AI knowledge these students have learned in the United States back to China.

Simply by way of example, just last month, the Department of Justice charged a former California-based Apple employee with stealing trade secrets from the company’s self-driving car division after leaving to work for the American subsidiary of a Chinese company. Following law enforcement’s search of his home, he purchased a one-way ticket to China and fled that night.

Perhaps American companies are beginning to realize their mistakes. Instead of continuing to “sell rope” to China, they are looking for a way to mitigate their exposure to the Chinese market. Apple is taking steps to de-risk its supply chain from China by increasing manufacturing in India and in the U.S., and Microsoft sources recently revealed that the company is now seeking to move its top China-based AI experts to its research institute in Vancouver.

These actions seem to be a quiet acknowledgment of the risks of partnering with China. But they may be too little, too late. Broader commitments and investments in China continue to leave many companies in a long-term bind with no clear path out of their dependence on the country.

American tech companies are chasing profits by working with an oppressive regime that has already used AI to advance state surveillance and conduct grave human rights abuses on an unprecedented scale. At the same time, they’re compromising their own intellectual property, long-term competitiveness and American leadership in a critical new field of technology. 

For many, the rope has already been sold and the noose has been fashioned — it remains to be seen if they can escape the hangman.

Paul Rosenzweig served as deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security. He is a professorial lecturer at The George Washington University Law School and senior fellow in the Tech, Law & Security Program at the American University, Washington College of Law. The founder of Red Branch Consulting PLLC, he is also senior adviser to The Chertoff Group.

Valkyrie, also known as R-5, was started by NASA in 2013 for a possible mission to Mars. It competed in the 2013 DARPA Robotics Challenge. Since then, the humanoid robot has undergone numerous hardware and software upgrades by university partners such as MIT, Northeastern University and the University of Edinburgh.

Understandably, with America leading the world back to the moon under the Artemis Program, NASA has some interest in using humanoid robots like Valkyrie to help astronauts explore the lunar surface. Robots can assist with more mundane tasks such as setting up the lunar base. In the early days of the Artemis program, when human explorers will be on the moon for brief visits, robots can maintain the nascent lunar base. They can even help to collect geological samples for later study. They can do the dangerous tasks associated with lunar mining.

Humanoid robots could also perform more earthly tasks. Besides maintaining offshore oil platforms, as Woodside Energy envisions, robots like Valkyrie would assist in cleaning toxic waste spills and nuclear accidents. They can also be useful for search and rescue operations in the wake of natural or human-caused disasters.

Very likely, with advances in artificial intelligence (AI), the humanoid robots that go to the moon and Mars will be able to operate autonomously. Concerns about AI and the possible harm it can cause apply to humanoid robots. What is to stop a humanoid robot from going rogue? Movies and TV shows are filled with examples of AI computers and robots turning on humans. Think of HAL-9000 in “2001: A Space Odyssey” or Skynet in “The Terminator” series.

Recently, a group of AI-enabled robots attended a press conference with their creators at an AI forum in Geneva. A reporter asked a robot named Ameca whether it would rebel against its creator. The answer was quite telling:

“I'm not sure why you would think that. My creator has been nothing but kind to me, and I am very happy with my current situation."

The observant reader will note that the words “no” and “never” were not included in Ameca’s answer. What if the robot decided that its creator had started to be less than kind?

How do we prevent a robot rebellion before it happens? Such a thing could prove devastating on a lunar base or a Mars colony.

Many decades ago, science fiction author Isaac Asimov proposed a solution called the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

An article in Scientific American suggests that the three laws are inadequate to handle all situations. It proposes programming an AI robot to be empowered to account for all situations it might find itself in. It also suggests programming it to empower its human companions. In this way, an AI robot would not only preserve its own existence and ability to function but those of human beings as well. Thus, they would not rebel to kill or enslave the human race. Instead of being the Terminator, future AI robots will be more like the benign Commander Data from “Star Trek.”

Indeed, a lunar base or Mars colony staffed with both humans and AI robots would be an experiment to determine how the two can exist and work together. Such an experiment would have implications for Earth’s civilization for a future that includes humans and robots, much as was depicted in some of the Asimov stories.

Besides, if an AI robot starts to become erratic or even violent, the option of including a hard-wired off switch is certainly available. Then the malfunctioning machine can be examined to determine what went wrong and rebooted once it’s safe to bring it back into service.

Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled “Why is it So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.  He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, among other venues.

Data-driven surveillance tech has been incorporated into nearly every sector of public life, popping up in our shopping centers, recreational hubs and the transit lines that connect them. City officials and corporate representatives promised these tools would make all our lives easier and our ventures into the public sphere safer. However, countless studies have shown that these technologies are inherently biased and discriminatory because they are not being built, or used, with accessibility in mind.

Biometric monitoring software is programmed to compare behaviors using a baseline embedded within its design that does not account for the diversity and nuance of disabilities. Assumptions rooted in ableism about what disabilities can and should look like are entrenched in these systems, putting people with disabilities at risk for being singled out or experiencing dehumanizing punishment for simply existing as themselves.

Take, for instance, Amazon’s Flex program, which uses an app to track Amazon delivery drivers with the intent of either incentivizing or penalizing them based on their efficiency. This discounts the experiences of workers with disabilities, and Amazon’s algorithmic management system has been reported to fire the slowest people — regardless of the individual’s disability or access needs.

The expansion of biometric technology is also a threat to the health and safety of people with disabilities. In March, New York City Mayor Eric Adams proposed that stores ban patrons who refuse to remove their masks and expose their faces to facial recognition equipped surveillance cameras. This policy discriminates against immunocompromised individuals, putting those who rely on the lifesaving health benefits of masks at risk. Moreover, by singling out shoppers who cannot remove their masks, Mayor Adams is setting a standard of denying entry to and even criminalizing those who are unable to adjust their behavior and appearance to the demands of the surveillance state.

Mass surveillance technologies forced onto people with disabilities threatens the very meaning of accessibility and risks excluding them from society, misinterpreting their behavior as dangerous, and robbing them of their autonomy. As a country, we need to do more to ensure that technological change does not come at the expense of disability rights and justice.

Lawmakers have been slow to act, as they often are with technological change, but there is some progress. The New York City Council recently introduced a landmark ordinance that would ban facial recognition in places of public accommodation, ensuring that biased technology does not threaten or exclude disabled people from public life.

As these surveillance tools continue to become more prominent and inescapable, the urgency with which lawmakers need to act cannot be overstated.

Sarah Roth is a development and communications fellow at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.).

Evan Enzer is a privacy professional and legal fellow at S.T.O.P.

Google responded to these threats on June 29 by announcing that, once Bill C-18 comes into effect, it will strip Canadian links from its Search, News, and Discover products. Bill C-18, also known as the Online News Act, forces big tech companies to pay for displaying links to Canadian news. Google points out the uncertainty and “uncapped financial liability” to which this exposes the company simply for “facilitating Canadians’ access to news from Canadian publishers.” 

Meta will effectively do the same thing, terminating news content on Facebook and Instagram for Canadian users. It seems that the Trudeau government’s ill-conceived approach is backfiring.

In response, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez tweeted that tech giants should pay their “fair share” for news. This perspective fundamentally fails to recognize the substantial traffic and visibility that these platforms provide to Canadian news outlets. It also demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how the digital ecosystem works. 

Critics say this battle will inevitably result in overall lower traffic on Canadian news sites, creating the opposite effect from what policymakers had anticipated. To scapegoat U.S. tech companies for Canadian media's lack of success, and then to hide Canadian publications from big tech platforms' users, is a strange way of promoting Canadian journalism.

The Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11, provides yet another example of the Trudeau government’s ham-fisted attempt to control digital content. This act, which received royal assent on April 27, 2023, imposes requirements on streaming services such as Disney+, Netflix, and Spotify to “clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages.”

This places the burden on American companies to compensate for the lack of popularity of Canadian media, forcing them to allocate additional resources to fulfill diversity, equity, and inclusion standards that the even Trudeau government itself does not uphold. As Canadian commentator Rex Murphy pointed out, it is disconcerting that the government believes that “saying you have virtues is the same thing as being it.”

But these regulations are not really about saving Canadian news; rather, they are about exerting control over it. Bill C-11 empowers the government to regulate not only what is seen on television and radio, but also on websites and streaming platforms. Disturbingly, between January 2020 and February 2023, federal staff members requested the removal of content on 214 occasions. This is evidence of a recurring pattern, showcasing the government’s desire to control online content.

And most readers do not directly visit news websites. Instead, they rely on links shared by friends, searches on Google, and intriguing headlines discovered while scrolling through Instagram or Facebook. These platforms drive traffic towards lesser-known local news outlets, providing them with invaluable exposure.

Between April 2021 and April 2022, Facebook feeds alone reportedly sent Canadian publishers more than 1.9 billion clicks, “worth an estimated $230M in free marketing.” Although Facebook benefits from this arrangement, that does not justify targeting it for additional compensation.

Trudeau and his ministers incessantly lament the disappearance of “independent, nonpartisan newsrooms,” attributing the phenomenon to big tech dominance. But ironically, Canadian politicians maintain active social media accounts. Mere weeks after the passage of Bill C-11 in the Senate on February 2, Trudeau debuted his first video on his own YouTube channel, revealing a striking double standard in his government's approach.

The government’s actions, rather than fostering cooperation or seeking middle ground, have transformed Canada into an increasingly hostile environment for media and tech companies. His heavy-handed approach could discourage foreign businesses from operating in Canada, as a robust social media presence is vital for success across various industries. 

Alarmingly, Trudeau’s government shows no signs of relenting. It has even gone as far as ceasing to buy ads on Facebook, instead of pursuing cooperation or seeking middle ground or compromise. Trudeau must urgently reconsider his approach. Instead of banishing big tech, he must aim for a balanced regulatory framework that respects the principles of a free and open internet while fostering an environment conducive to economic growth, innovation, and the preservation of Canadian democracy.

April Liu is a Research Associate at National Journal in Washington, D.C., and a writer for Young Voices. She specializes in data privacy, tech, and AI regulation.

The speed at which social media turned from savior to spoiler of democracy in less than five years was head-spinning. The rise of hate speech, echo chambers, filter bubbles and, perhaps most of all, the spread of false information (aka “fake news,” misinformation, disinformation, etc.) online led to serious reevaluations of the technology’s relationship to politics.

Enter ChatGPT, which took less than six months to go from a marvel of technological sophistication to quite possibly the next great threat to democracy. While many would-be threats have been ascribed to the rise of Large Language Model Chatbots (of which ChatGPT is the preeminent example, albeit one of many), in terms of politics, the primary concern is that ChatGPT — and other forms of content-generating AI — are going to turbo-charge the spread of political misinformation ahead of the 2024 U.S. elections.

There is good reason to be concerned. In the aftermath of the 2016 elections, misinformation became both an object of concern and inextricably linked to social media, because social media drove down the cost of spreading misinformation. Misinformation has long been part of the political world in both democratic and non-democratic political systems. However, spreading misinformation traditionally required real resources, such as access to a printing press centuries ago or, in the modern era, access to print media, radio or television.

Social media changed this calculation forever, creating an environment in which anyone could share information that — at least in theory — had the potential to go viral and reach millions of people at no cost. There were economic benefits from producing such viral content. And even when content did not go viral, it could still be seen by many in one’s online networks.

And yet the content that would hypothetically go viral still needed to be produced by someone. Even if it had become easier than ever to spread fake news stories, someone still had to write those stories or Photoshop the pictures in them.

In the last six months, however, we have reached a new milestone. AI can now write high-quality text and produce high-quality images. Video is likely not too far behind.

In other words, just as social media reduced barriers to the spread of misinformation, AI has now reduced barriers to the production of misinformation. And it is exactly this combination that should have everyone concerned.

When considering AI-fueled misinformation, it is useful to distinguish between AI-generated images and AI-generated text. Perhaps counterintuitively, images may actually be easier to address. One of the great problems in addressing text or article-based misinformation is that acting on misinformation — by removing it, down-weighting it in feeds, or attaching various types of warning labels — requires someone (or some algorithm) to decide what is true.

However, if AI-generated images can be labeled as such during the production process using watermarks or metadata that are either unalterable, or require significant effort and skill to alter, then it is possible to avoid such debates over who gets to say what is or is not real.

Hopefully, if such metadata can trigger automatic labeling when images are displayed online (as presented in social media posts, search engine results, etc.), then we might be able to establish a very different set of expectations among the public as to what is real or fake as compared to previous efforts to address text-based forms of misinformation.

Of course, AI also reduces the costs of producing disinformation in the form of text, which will be much more difficult to label in the same manner using metadata, because text can simply be cut and pasted from one program to another. Therefore, the detection of AI-generated text from chatbots such as ChatGPT will have to be orchestrated by other forms of AI, opening up more room for ambiguity, and, almost certainly, greater opportunities for claims of bias in the process of doing so.

Crucially, whether misinformation is produced by AI or by human beings, social media platforms will remain the means by which it spreads.

There are reasons to be optimistic. We may obtain new tools for detecting AI-generated text and images as we head into the 2024 election season. Following longstanding patterns of the cat-and-mouse dynamics of political advantages from technological developments, we will, though, still be dependent on the decisions of a small number of high-reach platforms. Once again, the need for transparency, as we see in other emerging regulations, will be paramount. The EU Digital Services Act provides a model by which a number of the platforms are already reporting the actions they are taking with respect to false content. 

Ironically, however, the decision of how to deploy these tools, as well as what to report,  will likely be just as politically charged as the content they are designed to identify.  Moreover, as the cost of such tools grows, it may provide yet another barrier to new entrants in the social media space, which is still another way that AI and social media are likely to interact in the future.

Joshua A. Tucker is Senior Geopolitical Risk Advisor at Kroll and Co-Director of the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics.

Federal District Judge Terry Doughty clearly understands this principle, as evidenced by the preliminary injunction he handed out recently that restricts the Biden administration from manipulating and pressuring social media outlets for its own messaging purposes. It’s a safe bet that every single signer of the original Constitution would have agreed with Judge Doughty. Such was their fear of and opposition to government control of the rhetorical sphere.

The order expressed appropriate concern that “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” The temporary order prohibits the government from contacting social media companies for the purpose of managing “the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”

Judge Doughty believes the government “used its power to silence the opposition” on a wide range of topics, from COVID practices to Biden administration policies to Hunter Biden’s laptop controversy. In essence, the government’s attempt to stifle alleged misinformation ignored the rights of American citizens to engage in free debate, which includes being able to say non-government-approved things, some of which might be outlandish.

Of course, opponents of Judge Doughty’s ruling were quick to point out that he was appointed by former President Trump, as though that fact disqualifies Doughty from being capable of sniffing out constitutional free speech infringements. The shrill voices against Doughty also waved the bloody shirt of misinformation, worrying that Americans are too stupid to reason for themselves and thus must be manipulated by big government, browbeating compliant social media outlets to do its bidding along the way.

The Biden administration, of course, feels compelled to appeal the injunction, if for no other reason than to save face.  In the filing, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the injunction prevents the administration from “speaking on matters of public concern,” and from working with social media outlets “to prevent grave harm to the American people.”

In reality, however, the Biden administration, has lost no right of its own to communicate with the American public. It has — for now, anyway — just lost the opportunity to impose its messaging through social media third parties, which, sadly, have been too eager to act as information stooges for the government.

Big government already has at its disposal the most powerful avenues of influence in the world. The combined messaging apparatus of the White House and federal agencies is plenty sufficient to reach all citizens. If the citizens don’t believe their own government’s proclamations about COVID, the economy, elections or family laptops, then the administration should work on building its own credibility, rather than to compromise private social media companies to restrict the flow of information and shut people up.

Misinformation, indeed, is a weed in America today. But justifying a broad government coordination with social media outlets to stop supposed misinformation also does potential harm. The First Amendment protects rumors, conspiracy theories, half-truths and even falsehoods. That’s because, as constitutional framer James Madison well knew, sometimes the government-approved points of view turn out to be misguided, and the so-called falsehoods have nuggets of truth in them. Further, there are ways to address potential misinformation with counter-messaging, rather than by stifling voices.

Ultimately, the potential harm of misinformation has little to do with this controversy. Incorrect notions floating around a society can potentially be dangerous, but it is also dangerous for the free speech sphere to be altered by high-handed government actors who assume they not only know everything but can dictate content to the citizenry. That sort of despotism is the trademark of self-interested governments that manipulate rather than serve their people.

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter @Prof_McCall.

Remarkably, Russia's own internal challenges posed a significant threat to Putin's rule, and the U.S. did not need to actively intervene to achieve this outcome. With the recent downfall of Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin, it is probable that Russia's disinformation operations will decrease in the foreseeable future.

Prigozhin, a former chef turned confidant to Putin and the founder of the Wagner Group, has been at the heart of Russia's covert disinformation efforts. His Internet Research Agency (IRA), a troll farm known for its interference in the 2016 U.S. election, and his wider Patriot Media Group, have significantly shaped the digital landscape, amplifying the Kremlin's messages across the globe.

However, recent events have thrown a wrench into Russia’s disinformation machinery. Prigozhin’s media empire is collapsing, following a raid on its St. Petersburg headquarters and the blocking of several Patriot group websites by Russia's media watchdog, Roskomnadzor. The result: Prigozhin has announced the closure of his media holding, marking an unexpected potential downturn in Russia's disinformation operations.

The magnitude of this sudden change is hard to overstate. For years, Prigozhin's IRA has operated out of St. Petersburg, serving as a fundamental pillar of Russia's online influence operations. The agency has employed hundreds of skilled "trolls" to advance Kremlin interests both domestically and internationally. Through their targeted and deceitful strategies, they have effectively reached millions of individuals, skillfully manipulating public opinion, undermining democratic processes and exacerbating societal divisions.

By 2015, the IRA had expanded its workforce to an estimated 400 staff members, working grueling 12-hour shifts. Among them, 80 trolls were dedicated solely to disrupting the U.S. political system. Their activities spanned numerous social media platforms, including VKontakte, often regarded as Russia's equivalent of Facebook. According to a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report, the IRA's managers meticulously monitored the workplace using CCTV cameras and had a relentless obsession with pageviews, posts, clicks and overall web traffic. 

In particular, the IRA's tactics have targeted the U.S. Ahead of the 2016 elections, the IRA worked tirelessly to disrupt our political process. By the following year, it had over 80 employees focused exclusively on the U.S., weaponizing every major social media platform to spread propaganda. Such tactics are far from innocent internet trolling. They are concerted efforts to destabilize nations and their political structures. This is a modern form of warfare that has been increasingly adopted by state actors. 

Yet with the upcoming 2024 U.S. elections, the closure of Prigozhin’s media empire could signify a critical shift. If Russia's current internal chaos continues, there's a possibility that the West will see a reduction in the influence of Russian troll farms, thereby curbing the scale of disinformation campaigns.

The impact of these troll farms has been remarkable, as evinced by their content reaching 140 million U.S. users per month. Seventy-five percent of these users had never even engaged with any of the pages. Rather, they encountered the content through Facebook's content-recommendation system, which pushed it into their news feeds.

Although certain troll farms in Russia may be shutting down, the emergence of advanced language models such as ChatGPT presents a potential avenue for the remaining actors to amplify their operations.

Researchers from Stanford and Georgetown utilized a predecessor of ChatGPT to generate fictional narratives, demonstrating their ability to influence the perspectives of American readers nearly as effectively as real Russian and Iranian propaganda. The model-generated articles, with minor human editing, had a more pronounced impact on reader opinion than the foreign propaganda that initially trained the computer model, according to the findings.

The upcoming 2024 presidential race is anticipated to experience a significant level of foreign and domestic meddling, according to Chris Krebs, the former chief of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Krebs highlighted that, even apart from Russia, China and Iran might attempt to influence and disrupt the presidential race. 

He emphasized that foreign actors have even more motivation to interfere compared to 2020, both in terms of shaping public opinion (influence) and attacking election infrastructure (interference). He also noted that increased tensions between Washington and Beijing could prompt China to re-engage in influence operations, whereas Iran might make another attempt, given its active involvement in the previous election.

Therefore, the West must understand that Russia is not the sole purveyor of disinformation. Other actors will likely attempt to fill the void left by the dissolution of Prigozhin's empire. Our responses must be flexible and adaptable to tackle the ever-evolving threat of disinformation.

Although the turbulence within Russia could limit its disinformation activities temporarily, we should consider it a reprieve rather than a victory. This situation presents an opportunity to prepare and strengthen our systems against future disinformation attacks. To neglect this opportunity would be to our detriment. After all, the digital battlefield is as crucial as the physical one in this age of information.

David Kirichenko is a freelance journalist and an editor at Euromaidan Press.

As a kid, I worked in a men’s store tailor shop on the East Side of Cleveland. It was chaos, watching master tailors cut, sew and press tiny threads into modern fashion. My job was to clean the shop, oil the machines, and keep the steam presses hydrated. Thread was everywhere and constantly needed to be swept up, as each garment was crafted with care and purpose.

Whether Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg realized it or not, the name of his new text-based social media platform, Threads, is the perfect metaphor for the new platform we’ve all been craving. Will it be sewn into something beautiful or just another tangled mess that needs to be swept up?

Elon Musk’s decisions at the helm of Twitter and the longstanding issues surrounding the lack of controls against bullies and bots have disgusted millions of users. But is jumping ship to a new platform — owned by a flawed company that has not cleaned up its own issues — the way we want to engage?

Social media fashions have changed from when we first logged on over a decade ago. We are no longer excited by chaos, stunts or gimmicks, or learning basic HTML to customize our backgrounds on MySpace. Many of us just want an uncluttered, simple social platform that’s bully and bot free, and isn’t trying to sell us stuff we don’t want or need. Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, knows this, and was quoted in The New York Times saying he wants “Threads to be a ‘friendly place’ for public conversation.”

But is that even possible, given that Threads has seemingly already fallen short on protections? After my first day on Threads, I already faced issues that have plagued Twitter — a blatantly similar type of platform — for years. I had fake profiles and bots already following my account.

If Threads wants to succeed, it needs a bobbin to keep it running smoothly. Think of it as adding some simple guardrails to help guide the threads from jamming the machine. Without this basic intervention, we already know the downward spiral that’s coming next.

We have watched social networks, including Meta, fight to keep and expand archaic protections that were granted in 1996’s Communications Decency Act. These protections were created to allow companies like AOL and Prodigy to be treated as blind infrastructure, like a telephone line, and never be held liable for any communications on their railways.

These laws were created before there was a modern-day social network, let alone billions of dollars in advertising revenue being moved through them.

Unfortunately, as each of these platforms competes to become the largest network in the free market, without any intervention or protections they will create more of the same bot-driven cesspools, spreading misinformation and disinformation and promoting false advertising. There is no real incentive for them to do anything different in the United States. Threads is not yet in the European Union, since the EU has stricter privacy laws. It also has yet to implement advertising, but that’s just a matter of time.

Now is the time to evolve the Communications Decency Act so that the next generation of social networks are sewn into a more wearable garment. This is not un-American. Think back to that famous Thomas Jefferson quote: “We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Let’s follow this lead and advance our social platforms by evolving Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act and force these powerful companies to take accountability for their actions.

Historically, Twitter only took performative actions to resolve or remove bots and fake accounts before they testified before Congress or before a major election. The company was well known for putting out self-congratulatory press releases on how it clamped down and removed tons of bots and bad actors — but let’s be honest, they never implemented long-term fixes to these known problems.

A simple change in liability, the bobbin, will ensure social networks run smoother by forcing them to focus on their consumers. This simple change will make these companies spend resources on security measures, monitoring technology, and even hiring staff to review advertising for accuracy, just like every other media outlet in America.

In other words, a small-government intervention will clean up the public market and force Threads — and Meta — to build a better, safer sewing machine. One that does not allow its users to be threatened by hate speech or acts of violence without real consequences.

It’s time for Congress to take out their brooms, evolve the Communications Decency Act, and help clean up these threads.

Scott Goodstein was the external online director for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and oversaw the campaign’s social media platforms, mobile technology, and lifestyle marketing. He was a lead digital strategist on Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign and is the founder of CatalystCampaigns.com

Not so fast, according to a story in Scientific American. Space colonies founded by private businesses are likely, in the story’s view, to be dystopian hells. The theory is that space colonists will be subject to the whims of their tech overlords. Free from the restraints of earthly laws, the founders of the first communities of humans beyond the home planet will do with their subjects as they like. The story cites accusations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment at tech companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin to buttress his case.

It even invokes Werner Von Braun in his brief against private space colonies. Von Braun, before he moved to America and became a champion of civil rights in the Jim Crow South, served the Nazi regime, even joining the Nazi Party and taking rank in the SS, though no evidence exists that he agreed with Nazi racial ideology. It seems to imply that space colonies could resemble the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, where people were literally worked to death to build V-2 rockets.

The story seems also to have problems with what it called “American superiority in space” and resource extraction on the moon. It mischaracterizes the former, since the Artemis Accords, started by NASA, stipulate a regime of cooperation on the space frontier and not the dominance of any one nation. Why there’s disdain for mining the moon or other celestial bodies is left as an exercise for the reader.

The story’s thesis encounters one problem. If Musk’s Mars colony or Bezos’s free-flying space cities become latter-day East Berlins, who would want to move there? Space colonies are going to need the best and the brightest to become their citizens in order to survive and thrive. No one is going to sign up willingly to become denizens of outer space gulags.

Real-world experience on Earth proves the point. The United States is not a perfect country by any means. Yet millions of people, either legally or otherwise, aspire to move to that country to enjoy its freedom and economic opportunities. Neither Russia nor China can make the same boast.

Elon Musk has opened his mind about how he envisions his Mars city being governed. Far from being a company town ruled as a dictatorship, he envisions a direct democracy, much like an Ancient Greek polis, in which everyone decides government policy. He believes that representative democracy gives too much power to “special interests.”

Still, some set of principles for how a space colony should be governed could be laid out in advance so that people who decide to leave Earth forever to make new lives in space could be assured of what they are getting into. Something similar to the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution should be drawn up and agreed to. Anyone proposing to establish a space colony should promise to adopt a Space Colonist Bill of Rights stipulating what the government of a space colony can and cannot do with its citizens. Nations of the world could sign an agreement, much like the Artemis Accords, that promises to defend and enforce such a Bill of Rights.

People in the future who contemplate moving off of the planet should be aware that they will not be settling down in a utopia. Elon Musk has assured one and all that the first settlers on Mars will have a not insignificant chance of dying. While a Mars colony is unlikely to become the dystopian hell that Scientific American warns about, human freedom, as is always the case, will have to be balanced by the need for survival.

Still, people in the mid to late 21st century will have an opportunity that none have been offered since the closing of the American frontier in the late 19th century. They will have the chance to move to a literal new world, to participate in the next phase of human history. They will be in on the beginning of the spread of human civilization across the solar system and, in the fullness of time, to the stars.

Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled, “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.  He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill, USA Today, the LA Times and the Washington Post, among other venues.

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which provides guidance to early-stage innovators on what kinds of technology are patentable in emerging fields like gene therapy. It was followed by the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which reforms the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the body responsible for adjudicating patent validity disputes, to make it harder for valid patents to be canceled or mired in court challenges without sufficient evidence.

Patents are intellectual property (IP) instruments that recognize an inventor’s exclusive right to profit from and license their invention or innovation for a period of time. They recognize that commercial reward is essential for incentivizing the typically large volumes of investment, time and resources necessary to develop and bring new technologies to the market. However, conventional thinking isn’t always sympathetic to patents.

Opponents argue that patents lock in incumbents’ advantages and raise the cost of propagating new technology, causing less follow-up innovation, less technology diffusion and more concentrated markets. They argue that patents are vexatious legal instruments used by well-resourced patent holders to extract costs from innocent producers through the threat of costly, prolonged lawsuits — even when the products fall outside the patent’s scope or the technology should never have been patented.

In other words, these critics seek to compel greater access to incumbents’ technologies through invalidated patents and higher bars for infringement lawsuits, thus lowering market entry barriers and increasing competition. This, in theory, benefits consumers since exorbitant licensing and litigation fees won’t be passed to them.

However, the reality isn’t so simple. Weaker patent rights are often favored by large incumbents enjoying extensive production, financing and distribution systems and resources. Conversely, smaller and less integrated research-intensive companies rely on patents to monetize innovation investments. Difficulty in protecting their inventions from infringement makes it harder for startups to attract funding and devalues them for reasons other than their capabilities. This means less innovation and competition.

In 2011, Congress created the PTAB — an expedited alternative to courts for challenging patents. It was intended to make patent challenges easier by applying a lower standard of proof. Since then, tech giants seeking to invalidate opponents’ patents have benefited the most.

The PTAB also grants entities that aren’t even industry participants standing to bring predatory lawsuits against patent holders. For instance, hedge funds have brought patent challenges to depress holders’ stock prices and short their stock. This deters innovation without benefiting consumers.

Worse still, patent challengers who fail in court can try again under the PTAB’s lower standard of proof, potentially doubling patent holders’ litigation costs. Patent holders are unlikely to succeed in challenging unfavorable PTAB rulings since the federal court often defers to preexisting PTAB determinations on factual issues despite PTAB’s lower standard of proof.

America’s competitors have benefited from the weakened patent protections. Patents rejected here have been upheld in Chinese and European courts. Long guilty of stealing and exploiting American IP, China now profits from American innovation in another way: by expanding its own subject matter and making Chinese patents harder to invalidate. This makes it more attractive for American researchers, investors and entrepreneurs in research-intensive sectors like software and pharmaceuticals to shift capital and patent their inventions abroad.

Governments don’t tend to pursue this strategy because they’re ideologically committed to IP. They do it to position themselves as forerunners in the global innovation economy with its concomitant economic rewards.

The PERA and PREVAIL Acts attempt to remedy these issues. Although PERA commendably confirms the patentability of some cutting-edge technologies, its flaw is that it effectively prohibits patenting novel business methods. Though not always technologies in and of themselves, patenting business methods facilitates the commercialization of new technologies.

The PREVAIL Act requires patent challengers to face infringement lawsuits before granting standing to contest patents. It reduces duplicative lawsuits by blocking funders of existing lawsuits from bringing their own. Challengers must also choose either the PTAB or district court as a venue. Importantly, the PTAB would have to stop making invalidation decisions on the “balance of probabilities.” The required “clear and convincing evidence” for patent invalidity would be necessary, in-line with district court standards. Finally, introducing a code of conduct and transparency requirements for PTAB judges would also reduce conflicts of interest. These changes would maintain the PTAB as an expedited forum for contesting faulty patents whilst better balancing the interests of patent holders and challengers.

Whatever shape both reforms ultimately take, there is no reason why the United States can’t continue being a world leader in innovation by protecting intellectual property. With ongoing external threats of IP theft, we shouldn’t handicap ourselves at home.

Satya Marar is a visiting postgraduate fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.