Patrick R. McElhiney believes that Presidents shouldn't be calling out large companies and suggesting that they should be broken up, because anti-trust cases should be left up to the courts. Anti-trust cases can be very complicated, and it doesn't serve the Justice Department to have politicized cases in favor of one side.
Breakup of Tech Companies
The breakup of Facebook and other large tech companies should be left up to the courts, if there is even an anti-trust case in the first place. If they are violating anti-trust laws, like Apple has recently with the App Store, then changes need to be made to allow for competition and award damages to the companies that have been disadvantaged, but not in a way that breaks apart the entire company in a way that it can't operate any longer. We need strong tech companies that are able to develop new products and services, like 5G, and it takes a lot of investment activity and research done by lots of employees to be able to develop those technologies, and they need to do it before their foreign counterparts invent those technologies, to ensure that America is in control of the tech sphere.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Misuse by Big Tech Partners
The Sarbanes-Oxly Act shall not be misused by big tech or its partners, such as for the purpose of breaking up large corporate partnership structures to attempt to build a larger monopoly for any entity, including, however not limited to Microsoft Corporation or Google or Sun Microsystems. Examples of this misuse would be the use of the Sarbanes-Oxly Act to break up smaller but large organizational patterns to damage the competition, for example that has not even gotten started, yet, to have the ability to acquire all of the assets, such as by provoking unnecessary Intellectual Property lawsuits, to have all of the eggs in one basket, by damaging all of the partner organizations, to attempt to acquire everything through one central company, even if the company is small or new.
Prohibition of Disadvantaging Intellectual Property Inventors
When intellectual property is stolen or taken from the original inventor, and the original inventor is not paid, not only do they lose their own original works or their ability to work on their own original works, that they likely put a lot of time into thinking up, however also they don't move forward, because they were not paid - this is a sign that when the inventor's works have shown up as counterfeit products or counterfeit services, that others have benefited from damaging the inventor, potentially, and that the inventor should be paid, since it is the intellectual property that the other parties are after. The lawsuits to get the inventor paid, such as due to intellectual property theft, should not pay third parties, and attorneys in intellectual property theft cases should be paid by the party that stole the intellectual property from the original inventor.
Additionally, criminal cases should never be used to disadvantage inventors, such as to try to advantage third parties, or to steal intellectual property from inventors of intellectual property or technologies, including with thier own inventions.
