if you are talking after 2000, I would agree with you. But the 90s-let's see: web browser, webmail, streaming media, these things affect the way almost every business works. let's go back to the 80s-almost no one had a computer-calculator maybe. by the end of the decade, every business almost, even low tech businesses had a computer. at the beginning of the 90s-almost no one had email. by the end of the 90s, businesses had websites, their employees had email and personal emails- it affected all industries and our personal lives.
I wanted to show that sharp contrast and juxtapose it to govt policies and regulations. You are not seeing that continue now due to the passage of Sarbanes Oxley and the changes in patent law both domestically and internationally. the good news is if these laws were changed, it wouldn't decades for the US to become the technological leader again-it would take 2-3 years tops. we have the skills.
finally, my husband has some inventor clients creating disruptive inventions. but the patent office and inability to fund (going public) these inventions have kept them in the lab. that's why I wrote a book.

"The proud (arrogant, in fact) creative people in the Homebrew Computer Club came together to show off their work. They shared ideas by implicit trade. Those who had something cool were highly regarded. It made the computer revolution possible. However, it was not to last."

Why do you say it was not to last? There's a huge open-source software and hardware movement. Many products run Linux. I learned on a TRS-80, but today kids are playing with Arduino, open source hardware.

If you have a case, though, where open source doesn't apply, where you're going to put millions of dollars into a new technology, shouldn't you be able to protect it?

Open Source is nearly always cloning an existing concept to get around some perceived roadblock. The biggest, most successful open source projects IMO have been the Linux kernel, the GNU userspace utilities, Apache, MYSQL, Firefox, and StarOffice/OpenOffice/Libreoffice. You're quite right - these things were already there, but in many cases dramatically sucked so bad or cost so much it's what motivated the creation of the open source project. I haven't seen anything disruptive in IT for a long time, from anybody. Really, what qualifies? I haven't seen anyone with a 3D printer yet. I think I have to go back to the burnable CD to say "this is a game changer".

linux, the crowning jewel of open source is nothing more than a rewrite of Unix. typical of open source. improvements on what's out there. run around and pat oneself on the back for creating something that was already there. point to one single, major, disruptive technological invention they created-

If they want innovation in their country, if they want the next Facebook and Google to be founded in China, they need to.

for China, the beginning of their IP law was in the 80s. and it has continued to strengthen. Like S Korea, like Japan i the 1860s. a country that is behind does not need to innovate, it needs to invest in capital. the invention is already developed. Clearly China has profited from strengthening their IP rights but also STEALING US technology. note-patent laws do not apply across international borders. it is too expensive for any company to file in all countries. this may transfer wealth from one country to another-but over all economic growth is retarded by this practice. Our economic problems are not mainly due to China STEALING our IP, but our own stupid regs and policies-including the fact that we publish all applications for a patent at 18 months. all anyone has to do to "steal" is read the freaking USPTO website. btw, this policy was implemented in 2000. the tech startup industry has never recovered

First of all, your analysis shows a lack of understanding the basis of property law. Property law is based on creation. The creator is the reason something exists and therefore the property owner. The law is recognizing that metaphysical fact.
1. patents are based squarely in Locke's formulation of property rights.
2. If I in some crazy world created a laser without any other knowledge one had been created, that does not make me the inventor. The RATIONAL answer is 1st person is the inventor. and rationally, we want there to be strong property rights because that's the way they get the investment for development. All these so-called simultaneous inventors or later independent inventors almost certainly actually had knowledge of the invention. If I create my own laser independently, I have not added to the world's store of knowledge. Heard the phrase "re-invent the wheel?" Economically, we don't move forward by having people re-create stuff. We move forward when new technologies are created.
3.Your whole psychological jealousy/love/lack of self-esteem/ own and control of others sounds more like Marx than Rand and Locke.
4.The idea that the computer industry arose out of some free love concept is a complete myth. There is no macro-economic evidence to support that proposition. Those countries with the strongest IP laws are the most technologically advanced. Those with the weakest, are the most backward.
5. A patent should not and does not cover the exact implementation of your invention. It covers what you teach, the knowledge that you provide-rationally, you should not be able to profit off of my developed knowledge without paying. The priority of date only extends to the knowledge from the first one. so any claims based on knowledge that was old (expired patent) would no longer be valid, regardless of the priority. Xerox was only able to do this, due to disruptive inventing.
I am only going this far in your post because not only do I disagree with most of your points, they are wrong and stem from a lack of understanding of how property rights work.

He makes some good points Khalling lol.