Please give me a break! First, congratulations - your sensational headline got me to read the article. But, other than the "granular" problems you point out, the larger arguments are just silly.

The Act does not tip the power construct unfavorably towards investors. Any VC worth a damn is a partner not an adversary. If a VC uses conditions in the Act to exert leverage in negotiations, he is not worth having as a partner in the first place.

The Act does not increase entrepreneur risk. Every founder has to consider many different areas of risk to his business, to his family and to his lifestyle. Rather than increasing risk, the Act presents an opportunity. As with any opportunity to gain something, there is a chance that you will fail. The Act would only increase entrepreneur risk if it changed the law in that it reduced opportunity - it doesn't.

The Act is bad for (US) investors because good entrepreneurs will self-select away from the US? Come on! That is absurd and in fact the opposite should happen.

Sorry, but the article seemed for the most part insincere or misinformed.