George F. Pappas is the chairman of the Governor?s Commission
on Development of Advanced Technology Businesses. He was named to head the new panel in December by then-Gov.-elect Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. The move was Ehrlich’s first economic development initiatve.
The panel is expected to provide the governor with a report by July on ways to encourage more technology business in Maryland. So far, Pappas is the commission’s only member.
A partner at the Baltimore law firm Venable, Baetjer and Howard, Pappas created the firm’s intellectual property litigation group in 1990 and served as its first partner-in-charge. He has served as patent counsel on cases in the United States, Germany and Japan.
In 2001, Pappas was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist to serve as a member of the District Judge Education Advisory Committee for the Federal Judicial Center. He also is a board member of the University of Maryland School of Law and the Intellectual Property Program Advisory Board.
You were named to the commission by Governor Ehrlich. What message does that send?
It demonstrates Governor Ehrlich’s commitment to economic development and business development in Maryland — and, particularly, to enhancing the presence and growth in advanced technology businesses in the state.
Why?
It is essential to Maryland’s present and to its future that we create and further build upon the base of technology businesses that are here, work hard to create an even greater infrastructure for technology companies — so that we not only further support the companies that are here, but that we are able to attract companies from other states and help those companies that are starting out.
What is the commission’s mandate?
Our purpose is threefold:
Because the commission has the governor’s support, you basically have have carte blanche, right?
What the endorsement of the governor means is that all the issues are on the table and that we?re going to look at them with a fresh perspective. We’re also going to be inclusive and seek everyone?s input as much as possible. Much fine work has gone on already, but we?re going to address this issue from a statewide perspective.
This includes examining the state’s regulatory structure for business?
That?s correct.
Does the possibility of addressing regulatory change require the commission to approach this task differently?
We wouldn’t necessarily approach the task differently than we would any other challenge.
But when you attempt to address the regulatory climate in the state, it is important to talk to chief executive officers and chief financial officers of existing technology companies, as well as study other states to see what kinds of regulations foster a positive climate and those that have been recognized or perceived as obstacles.
Some regulations easily could be perceived as obstacles when they really are not, right?
With regulations, in general, it?s usually a combination of perception and reality.
But, also, it?s a question of attitude. For instance, you may have a law on the books, and one agency can choose to use it in a constructive way — in terms of how we can get things done — or, another individual can look at the same regulation and choose to apply it in a way that poses a barrier.
I believe that this is what the current governor has signaled loud and clear: Maryland is, under his administration, going to be business-responsive: How do we resolve a problem? How does government work with business for the betterment of all of Maryland’s citizens?
Where does Maryland stand nationally in the technology race?
From a subjective standpoint, Maryland is recognized as having made substantial strides in the biotech area, as well as is beginning to make strides in the optics area and in the creation of software.
I also think, though, that Maryland is perceived as not having been as successful as other states — California, Texas, Massachusetts and North Carolina — and that?s what we intend to change.
What is the most important technology challenge facing Maryland?
The challenge for the state is to create a “technology infrastructure” — whether it?s access to high-speed lines, whether it?s access to the Net, whether it is the clustering of outstanding researchers in a particular field. It is the creation of an infrastructure that fosters the growth of technology and attracts others to join it.
Where is Maryland’s technological potential?
It certainly is in continuing to grow and develop our bioscience companies. It?s also growing the medical devices and pharmaceutical compounds that are being created by some of our companies, as well as supporting the fiber optics and software industries that already exist here.
One of our competitive advantages is the ability to work with the federal laboratories in the state — and they are interested in commercializing some of their technology. The goal will be to work better and more closely with them.
Why hasn?t this potential been tapped before?
To a certain extent, it has — in pockets. There are pockets of the state that are doing well: Prince George?s County has done well; Montgomery County has done very well, Baltimore County — and things are starting to happen in Baltimore City.
However, historically, there has not been, to my knowledge, a statewide effort, led by the governor, to address many of these issues for all Marylanders.
But what about the efforts of such advocacy groups as the Maryland Technology Development Corp., the Emerging Technology Centers, MdBio Inc. and the Greater Baltimore Technology Council? Does Maryland need another such group?
It needs a group like this commission to examine the problems on a statewide basis and outline a plan through which every one of these very fine groups can be brought together to work and to recognize things that can be done for the state.
How do you respond to those entrepreneurs who say, “This is all good, but what I need is money?”
All businesses need money — and one answer to that is, as we create a very receptive environment for technology companies, you then foster research, the research then gets transferred — from government labs or universities — and, then, commercialization.
And once good ideas, supported by good business plans, take root, then venture capital investment will follow.
So, this effort ultimately is dependent on venture capital?
Basically, if you talk to most venture capitalists, they will tell you that if the product or process is real — that is, consumers are going to want it — and the individuals who have developed it have a sound business plan to bring it to market, they can get funding.
Is the commission, in essence, saying: “We’re going to provide the outline, and, technology community, venture capitalists, General Assembly, it is up to you to make it work?”
I would state that this way: Once we?ve outlined a cogent and thoughtful plan, which people agree is a good blueprint or outline, then it will take all of those groups working together, doing their part, to make it successful.
And it all starts with a blueprint?
Yes.
Beyond four years?
Yes.
Or even eight years?
Yes.
The need to build and to support technology generally, and to have the infrastructure in the state to support it, and to continue attracting and supporting businesses in those fields is, basically, our future.
But as they often say, “A great journey begins with small steps.”
