Worcester Business Journal

www.wbjournal.com December 7, 2015 • Worcester Business Journal 29 Keep moving Worcester toward single rate tax E D I T O R I A L The Worcester Business Journal welcomes letters to the editor and commentary submissions. Please send submissions to Brad Kane, editor, at bkane@wbjournal.com. H ere in New England, we pride ourselves on our vibrant and thriving innovation economy. Our region is home to an array of innovative businesses in information technology, life sciences, medical and manufacturing sectors, to name a few. For all of these businesses, intellectual property is a significant asset and one that they seek to protect. One of the most valuable categories of intellectual property for many of our region's innovators is trade secrets. In fact, the trade secrets of U.S. publicly listed companies alone are worth approximately $5 trillion. Trade secrets can include a wide range of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g manufacturing processes, product development, source code, industrial techniques, formulas, pricing information and customer lists. Protecting this intellectual property is critical to driving innovation that is key to economic growth and global competitiveness. Unfortunately, innovators in our region are increasingly the target of sophisticated efforts to steal trade secrets. While there are currently various state laws in place to address the theft of trade secrets, there are not adequate measures in place at the federal level to address the interstate and international nature of theft in the 21st century. This is particularly problematic in the New England region where it is incredibly easy for a party who has stolen trade secrets to move quickly across state jurisdictional borders. Companies who own trade secrets need access to a federal civil remedy and the same legal options that are currently available to the owners of other forms of intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks and copyrights. Earlier this year, bipartisan legislation to close this gap in the law, The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015, was introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation has a long list of co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, including representatives Joseph Kennedy (D-MA), Seth Moulton (D-MA), David Cicilline (D-RI) and Peter Welch (D-VT), and Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015 would establish a federal civil right of action for businesses to protect trade secrets in U.S. federal courts. It would provide a consistent, harmonized legal framework and would help minimize the commercial injury and loss of employment that can result when trade secrets are stolen. A federal civil right of action will also eliminate the complicated and costly process of pursuing legal action across multiple state jurisdictions. In addition to strong bipartisan support in Congress, this bill has won the support of numerous businesses and trade associations representing a wide range of industries, including The New England Council. Our region is home to some of the nation's, and indeed, the world's most cutting edge, innovative companies, all of whom play a significant role in the region's economic well-being. It is critical that we provide these innovators with the tools to protect their intellectual property so that they can continue to grow, and we are hopeful that Congress will do just that by passing the Defend Trade Secrets Act. n James T. Brett is the president and CEO of The New England Council, a non-partisan alliance of business and organizations throughout New England that advocates for federal policy that promotes economic growth in the region. Innovators need tools to protect trade secrets BY JAMES T. BRET T Special to the Worcester Business Journal V I E W P O I N T James T. Brett I'm pleased to see the debate around net metering receiving attention. Last week the legislature almost passed legislation addressing caps on net metering, the program that compensates solar customers fairly for the power they put back into the grid. Since the cap was hit in March, solar projects have stalled in 171 communities, costing jobs and investment. Lifting the caps is essential for Massachusetts to move towards a renewable and prosperous energy future. The bill that almost passed, however, would've done more harm than good. It only raised the cap 2 percentage points, enough to relieve the backlog of projects but not enough for more. We would've hit the new caps by the spring. Furthermore, the bill set up a wholesale-only compensation rate for solar customers, making harder to finance solar projects, especially for low-income communities and renters who need the benefits of solar most. I urge the legislature to address net metering caps immediately in January, but with a bill that lifts the caps more than 2 percentage points and ensures a brighter energy future. Julia Dougherty Somerville Mass. must raise solar caps higher L E T T E R As the council members discuss the new property tax rates -- particularly the dual-tax rate that establishes how much more businesses pay than residents -- they need to keep in mind their long- term goals for the city. Too often, these public policy decisions only look to the immediate problems and pressures of the day. But a series of small, short-term decisions can add up to create big long term message, which is how cities like Worcester can have a hard time shaking its reputation for not being unfriendly to business. Under the dual-tax system that was first adopted in 1984, Worcester commercial and industrial property owners today pay $31.73 per $1,000 valuation, which is the third highest in Central Massachusetts. Residential property owners currently pay $20.07 per $1,000 valuation. This disparity puts the city at a disadvantage to its surrounding suburbs in attracting and retaining businesses, as only 15 of the other 84 communities in Central Mass also have dual-tax systems. Over the long term, we believe in the strategy that advocates Worcester returning to a single-tax rate system, where everyone pays the same rate. That will go a long way to ensuring the businesses that make up the lifeblood of the city will stay and grow in Worcester. But you can't get there all at once, as the gap should be closed gradually over several years. Changing too quickly would overburden city residents, particularly those on fixed income. What the City Council needs to do on Tuesday is keep moving toward a single-tax system by narrowing the gap between the two rates, as it has since fiscal 2012 when the disparity was nearly at the legal limit allowed by Massachusetts. Right now, all of the proposals currently on the table increase the gap, even the business-friendliest one put forth by Mayor Joe Petty. For the City Council to reverse the course over the past four years is a troubling development, and we hope that cooler heads prevail and that any increase for commercial property owners is minimized. n This issue profiles several influential business leaders who are making a difference in our region. While there are certainly dozens of others who could be included, the list is a nice mix of established executives and fresh new faces who are creating new organizations and opportunities. It's a reminder that power comes not just from the size of your company, your department's budget or your personal wealth, but how you leverage the assets you have to influence your organization and the community. Central Massachusetts is made up of a number of smaller cities and towns, and its largest city -- Worcester -- is no Boston, full of high rise office towers and outsized egos. That is not to knock the hub -- which is a truly a world-class destination -- but there are benefits to being smaller. It's a little friendlier, you can know the place and the people faster, and you don't have to be in the inner circle to make a difference. Let us know what you think of the list, and who you'd like to see on it next year. n Players big and small can have power T he Worcester City Council on Tuesday will make its third attempt to set the fiscal 2016 tax rates, after failing to come to an agreement twice on the controversial issue.

• Cover