With a rapidly growing tech sector, Colorado is an innovative leader among states with advances in smart grid technology, and abundant opportunity for STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) professionals and graduates. Policymakers have partnered with business leaders to attract new high tech investment and the jobs it provides.

Colorado has worked hard to position itself at the cutting edge of innovation, and the investment has paid off. This year I cosponsored HB 1246 to make it much easier for Colorado start-ups to raise the necessary capital. This law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper. Access to startup capital is especially crucial for our 14,425 tech companies here, as industry trends shift rapidly and competition is especially fierce in this realm.

Colorado has the third-highest concentration of high-tech workers in the U.S. and ranks fifth for percentage of payroll coming from technology industries, according to a 2015 report. The state hosts 186,149 of these workers, boasting a total payroll of around $19 billion. Our great universities, including the University of Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State University and my alma mater, the U.S. Air Force Academy, have outstanding reputations around the globe for producing highly skilled graduates.

As elected officials, we understand that the public and private sector must work in concert to ensure that students and business have access to the latest and greatest technology, which attracts new investment and jobs. The U.S. economy depends on private investment in cutting-edge technology and removing hurdles for innovators seeking to start, build, and grow the technology enterprise success of tomorrow.

Our message is loud and clear: Colorado is open for business, especially technology business. This sentiment resonates across the aisle and throughout our great state.

On many issues, the partisan or ideological divide centers on the size and role of government. But when it comes to technology policy, issues are often complex and positions rarely fall along partisan lines. Matters of technology transfer and Internet regulation are best addressed with input from engineers and developers. Even so, government engagement is inevitable. Policies should aim to foster innovation and increase access so that all can benefit from new technologies — many of which were developed here in Colorado.

A pending high-tech patent dispute illustrates the delicate balance that policymakers must try to strike. Nvidia, a graphics technology company, claims a large amount of Samsung smartphones and tablets contain chips made by Qualcomm, which infringe on Nvidia’s patents. Given the value of intellectual property in today’s economy, it is vital that intellectual property is protected vigilantly and infringement claims are investigated thoroughly with consideration for both patent rights and the public interest.

Nvidia hopes the International Trade Commission will halt the import of any Samsung products that contain Qualcomm’s disputed chips. The ITC, which investigates disputes involving international trade practices, can do this with an exclusion order. The problem with an exclusion order in this case is that the unintended impact would span far beyond Qualcomm and Samsung. It would include millions of devices and stifle mobile technology innovation, a mainstay of the vibrant tech sector.

Nvidia is also suing both companies in federal court, which seems like forum shopping. Though the ITC can issue exclusion orders, they cannot award financial damages. An Oct. 9 ITC initial determination stated that judges found no evidence of infringement by Samsung or Qualcomm, but the ITC protocols allow Nvidia to push forward and continue to seek an exclusion order.

So why will this harm Coloradans? An exclusion order would dramatically disrupt the supply of devices that our state’s students, entrepreneurs and innovators rely on every day. Many of our technology companies are building applications and equipment specifically for these devices. Samsung is the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer, producing more than half of all Android smartphones, which are the majority of all smartphones sold in the U.S.

There are other implications as well. People in rural and low-income areas are especially reliant on their mobile devices for Internet access because broadband is either unavailable or too expensive. And a pillar of the popularity of Android devices is that they are available in a wide price range. So the supply tapering resulting from an exclusion order would disproportionately impact Coloradoans who take advantage of the accessibility and affordability of these phones.

My message is this: Colorado relies on mobile devices, whether it’s to fuel our tech sector or to connect us to the Internet. Companies must protect their intellectual property, but disputes can be resolved in court or through mediation. Attempts to unnecessarily block access to technology and the Internet, while hindering the growth of our technology sector, will not be taken lightly.

Legislation to address abuses within the dynamic tech sector is rarely effective and not something I casually advocate. However, if the ITC continues to be a popular venue for litigants’ abuse of intellectual property rights through the unwarranted threat of exclusion orders, it may be time for policymakers to consider a legislative fix. Colorado will not stand idly by while our Internet access is needlessly limited and our technology economy is hindered by abusive market intrusion.

State Sen. Owen Hill, a Colorado Springs Republican, chairs the Senate Education Committee, is vice chair of the Finance Committee and is a member of the State Affairs Committee.