The author begins by making the case that innovation was at a peak in the early 20th century, but has been largely stagnant at the start of the 21st century. It

The author begins by making the case that innovation was at a peak in the early 20th century, but has been largely stagnant at the start of the 21st century. It's a provocative question, but I believe it's a symptom of a real underlying cause. To answer him more directly: Innovation will ramp up when the influence of moneyed interests on legislative priorities begins to wane. An interesting and, I believe, a truly important thing happened for innovation at the beginning of the 20th century, the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. He demanded transparency from food suppliers, broke up Standard Oil and worked hard to restrain the power and influence of large corporations. We need another T.R. for innovation to thrive. In just this past year, there have been numerous anti-competitive legislative initiatives that we can point to. Each one lobbied for and backed by entrenched oligopolies that are actively trying to put the clamps on innovation. This is happening at both the federal (PIPA/SOPA, CISPA, patent wars, AT&T/T-Mobile Merger) and local level (Bans on Municipal Broadband). In his book, "The Master Switch", Tim Wu tells a great story about a device invented at Bell Labs capable of recording a callers voice if the attached phone was not answered. The year was 1934, but the magnetic recording tape, used in answering machines and computer storage devices, did not become widely available until decades later. The AT&T monopoly chose to keep this new technology a secret, fearing that it would cannibalize their profitable business model. If nothing else, this story demonstrates the type of bureaucratic mindset that prevents entrenched corporate interests from making the kind of leaps that come from hungry entrepreneurs and government funded research. As a reader of HN, I would guess that this is already clearer to you than most.