I think the patent law being broken arguement that the article is trying to make is as follows:
the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.
A good leader is more valuable than an good underling, but just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless.
What is necessary isnt 'democracy' per se, but some means of a good body rejecting a bad brain, because bad leadership more than any other single thing is what kills companies, and typically there is nothing structurally in place to eliminate bad leaders.
a public company is a democracy of that requires you buy a vote(s).
Good leaders realize that they must to some degree listen to their underlings, they shouldnt be beholden to underlings, but they should always listen and know when act on what they hear and when not to.
Worked for subsidiary of SAIC contracting out to NYC government over a decade ago. Trust me when I say this is nothing out of the usual... project will go order of magnitude over budget constantly.
As for the requirements that drive these projects, typically they are written specifically to present the appearance of an open bidding process while allowing the departments to know ahead of time who will actually implement the contract because they are so specific in certain areas that only one contract can possibly fulfill them.
the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.