World Competitive Rankings defy logic

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country but its rankings defy the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

BANGKOK: The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just issued its Global Competitiveness Index 2012-2013 rankings.

Thailand’s competitiveness ranking has improved slightly to 38th spot this year, while Switzerland has edged out Singapore to become the most competitive nation on earth.

The WEF has its own formula in ranking the competitiveness of each country. However, the WEF’s ranking does raise some eyebrows.

According to the WEF, Spain is more competitive than Thailand because its overall ranking is 36th. This ranking is questionable.

Spain is planning to seek a full bailout from the European Union. The European Central Bank is about to monetise its debt. It has received €100bil (RM393.7bil) in bailout funds already. Some €75bil (RM295.3bil) in deposits have fled the Spanish banking system.

Spain is in a similar situation to Thailand in the first part of 1997 before Thailand sought a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. By this measure, Spain should not get a ranking higher than Thailand.

Switzerland, ranked No.1, will not enjoy its position as an oasis of peace and prosperity in Europe for too long in the event of a euro implosion. Swiss banks’ assets, which are tied to the European banking crisis, are more than 300% of the country’s GDP.

The United States has slipped to 7th in the rankings. The US economy is in big trouble. Some 46 million Americans are on food stamps. There are 10 million Americans unemployed, including another 12 million who are doing odd jobs.

Some 18 million American households are having a tough time making ends meet. The banking system is in shambles. The US national debt has hit US$16tril (RM49.7tril), or about 100% of the GDP. The budget deficit is chronic. The country is years away, if ever, from being able to balance its budget.

Most important, the Federal Open Market Committee will meet on Sept 12 to determine whether it will go ahead with a bond-buying programme, or QE3, to further prop up the financial system. US finances are in very bad shape indeed.

Japan is ranked in 10th spot. Does it deserve this position? The whole world knows that Japan has the world’s largest public debt at more than US$12tril (RM37.3tril), or 230% of its GDP. Japan’s debt is largely financed by domestic bonds. But with an ageing society, Japan will face higher interest costs from its borrowing, which will put the health of its finances into further question.

The Japanese economy is far from recovering from its crisis of the 1990s. Japan is facing sluggish growth and also high energy costs in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster.

Its export sector is feeling the pinch from the strong yen. If the consumer markets in Europe or US were to slacken even more, Japan’s export machines will wobble. Foreign exchange earnings will plunge, while domestic demand has been in a weak state all along.

Saudi Arabia, ranked at 18th, is the world’s largest oil exporter. But a Citibank report issued last week said Saudi Arabia might have to import energy by 2030 if the current pace of domestic consumption and exports continues.

Israel is ranked 26th, though it is facing off against Iran in the Middle East. A war could break out between the two countries at any time, given the tensions between their leaders.

China is ranked 29th, although it is the richest country in terms of foreign exchange reserves. Its reserves stand at US$3tril (RM9.3tril). China is the world’s production factory. Its economy is the world’s second largest after the United States. It is improving fast in technology and innovations.

Moreover, China is also building up its military and has nuclear weapons in store. Apparently, China does not deserve this relatively low ranking.

This also applies to other Brics countries such as Russia (67th), Brazil (48th) and India (59th). How is it possible that the Philippines musters at 65th, two notches higher than Russia, which is still a superpower, rich with resources? The Philippines is vulnerable to food price increases and also to natural disasters.

The WEF may have its own method of measuring the competitiveness of each country. But its rankings defy common sense and the stark reality of what is going on in the world.

From a group of leading Asian newspapers working towards improving coverage of Asian affairs
http://www.asianewsnet.net/

China, Russia sound alarm on world economy at APEC summit

By Timothy Heritage

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia

(Reuters) - China and Russia sounded the alarm about the state of the global economy and urged Asian-Pacific countries at a summit on Saturday to protect themselves by forging deeper regional economic ties.

Chinese President Hu Jintao said Beijing would do all it could to strengthen the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) by rebalancing its economy, Asia's biggest, to improve the chances of a global economic recovery.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said trade barriers must be smashed down as he opened the APEC summit which he is hosting on a small island linked to the Pacific port of Vladivostok by a spectacular new bridge that symbolizes Moscow's pivotal turn to Asia away from debt-stricken Europe.

"It's important to build bridges, not walls. We must continue striving for greater integration," Putin told the APEC leaders, seated at a round table in a room with a view of the $1 billion cable-stayed bridge, the largest of its kind.

"The global economic recovery is faltering. We can overcome the negative trends only by increasing the volume of trade in goods and services and enhancing the flow of capital."

Hu told business leaders before the summit the world economy was being hampered by "destabilizing factors and uncertainties" and the crisis that hit in 2008-09 was far from over. China would play its role, he said, in strengthening the recovery.

"We will work to maintain the balance between keeping steady and robust growth, adjusting the economic structure and managing inflation expectations. We will boost domestic demand and maintain steady and robust growth as well as basic price stability," he said.

Hu spelled out plans for China, whose economic growth has slowed as Europe's debt crisis worsened, to pump $157 billion into infrastructure investment in agriculture, energy, railways and roads.

Hu steps down as China's leader in the autumn after a Communist Party congress, but he promised continuity and stability for the economy.

Putin, who has just begun a new six-year term as president, said on Friday Russia would be a stable energy supplier and a gateway to Europe for Asian countries, and also pledged to develop his country's transport network.

RUSSIA LOOKS EAST

The relative strength of China's economy, by far the largest in Asia and second in the world to the United States, is key to Russia's decision to look eastwards as it seeks to develop its economy and Europe battles economic problems.

APEC, which includes the United States, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and Canada, groups countries around the Pacific Rim which account for 40 percent of the world's population, 54 percent of its economic output and 44 percent of trade.

APEC members are broadly showing relatively strong growth, but boosting trade and growth is vital for the group as it tries to remove the trade barriers that hinder investment.

The European Union has been at odds with both China and Russia over trade practices it regards as limiting free competition. Cooperation in APEC is also hindered by territorial and other disputes among some of the members.

Putin, 59, limped slightly as he greeted leaders at the summit. Aides said he had merely pulled a muscle. Underlining Putin's good health, a spokesman said he had a "very active lifestyle."

Discussions at the two-day meeting will focus on food security and trade liberalization. An agreement was reached before the summit to slash import duties on technologies that can promote economic growth without endangering the environment.

Breakthroughs are not expected on other trade issues at the meeting, which U.S. President Barack Obama is missing. He has been attending the Democratic Party convention and Washington is being represented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

U.S. officials say Clinton's trip is partly intended to assess Russia's push to expand engagement in Asia, which parallels Washington's own turn towards the Asia-Pacific region.

Also missing the summit was Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Putin said she had dropped out because her father had died.

(Additional reporting by Gleb Bryanski, Andrew Quinn, Katya Golubkova, Douglas Busvine, Denis Pinchuk and Andrey Ostroukh; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Put an end to patent battle

An early settlement of the dispute between Samsung and Apple would benefit consumers and the global mobile device industry as a whole. 

An Apple Inc. iPad 2 and iPhone 4S smartphone, left, and a Samsung Electronics Co. Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer and Galaxy S III smartphone are arranged for a photograph in Seoul, South Korea, On Tuesday. (Bloomberg)

SEOUL: Samsung Electronics has suffered a crushing defeat in a landmark patent battle against Apple Inc. A US jury last Friday found that the Korean smartphone maker infringed upon a number of patents held by Apple, while the American tech giant did not violate any of its Korean rival’s intellectual properties.

The jury’s judgement is widely criticised here as unfair. But it is highly likely to be upheld by the California court, dealing a serious blow to Samsung, the world’s largest mobile device producer. Samsung accounted for 32.6% of the global market in the second quarter against Apple’s 16.9%.

The nine-member jury ordered Samsung to pay US$1.05bil (RM3.28bil) in damages to Apple. The damages – much larger than expected – could be doubled or even tripled by the judge overseeing the trial, given the jury’s scathing verdict that Samsung “willfully” infringed on Apple’s coveted patents.

Samsung also faces a US sales ban on its mobile devices. Following the trial win, Apple presented to the judge a list of Samsung products it wants barred. Apple identified eight Samsung smartphone and tablet models but did not include Samsung’s new flagships, the Galaxy S3 and the Galaxy Note. Consequently, the sales ban, even if accepted by the court, is unlikely to have a serious impact on Samsung.

The US court’s ruling could also negatively affect patent battles between the two under way in nine countries over four continents. Unfavourable rulings in these countries would pour cold water on Samsung’s ambition to cement its global market leadership.

Furthermore, the jury seriously wounded Samsung’s pride by slamming it as a copycat. This is an insult hard to swallow, as Samsung has worked hard to secure leadership in mobile technology.

Given the high stakes involved, it is only natural that Samsung has decided to file post-verdict motions to overturn what it saw as the jury’s one-sided judgement. It plans to take the case to the court of appeals if its motions are rejected.

This suggests that the patent war will not end any time soon. Samsung is determined to continue the legal battle to make its case that Apple did encroach upon its hard-won patents for mobile technologies.

At the same time, Samsung is seeking to turn the tables in the next round of the battle by utilising its patents for fourth-generation technologies called “long-term evolution.”

Samsung is betting that it would be able to use some of its LTE patents as weapons against its rival because they have not been made open as industry standards. It is wondering how Apple can produce its next-generation model, the iPhone 5, without using its patented LTE technologies.

In light of Samsung’s technological prowess and deep pockets, the company will be able to overcome the grave challenge it is facing now.

For instance, it won’t have much difficulty paying the US$1.05bil (RM3.28bil) damages set by the jury, given that its net profit amounted to US$4.5bil (RM in April-June alone.

Yet Samsung should learn a lesson from the costly patent war. It is imperative for the company to transform itself from a fast follower to a first mover. It needs to go back to the drawing board to make its products truly innovative both in design and functions. It might want to risk a radical design that can differentiate its products from others.

Apple, emboldened by last Friday’s triumph, may be tempted to expand the patent war to collect royalties from other smartphone makers that rely on Google’s Android operating system. Yet it should realise that no company has ever succeeded in establishing market leadership through patent litigations. A company can only become a market leader through competition in the marketplace.

Apple also needs to know that any attempt to drive Android-based smartphone producers into a corner could backfire in the long term, as it will spur their efforts to become more innovative. With their survival at stake, they will be compelled to change the game as they cannot beat Apple at its own game.

In this regard, we urge Apple and Samsung to reach a deal that can benefit both. Apple could set royalties for Samsung at a level that would not undermine the Korean company’s earnings too much. An early settlement of the dispute would also benefit consumers and the global mobile device industry as a whole.

 
By EDITORIAL DESK

Related posts
Apple patent claims stifling innovation; Japan court rules in favour of Samsung 
Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android system 
Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win 
US Stocks dominate; Korean share drops after US's ruling on Apple-Samsung patent wars 
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?
 

The rising K-economy in Asia

HOW big is the impact of the Internet potential on Asia, including the impact on development of the knowledge economy in Asia?

We all have a sense that the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry has transformed social media, education and the way business is done. But we are not sure what is the best way to use the Knowledge economy to propel our future growth.

In 1973, American sociologist Daniel Bell predicted the arrival of the Post-Industrial Society by 2000 with a world dominated by service industry, high value professional and technical employment and innovation driven by scientific research.

In 2000, the number of global Internet users was only 360 million, rising to 2.3 trillion with an annual growth rate of 528% between 2000-2011, of which 45% reside in Asia. The highest penetration of Internet is in North America (78.6%), whereas penetration in Asia is only 26.2%, pointing towards huge potential for Asian growth.

According to Internet World Statistics, the top Internet country in Asia is China, with 513 million users, followed by India (121 million), Japan (101 million) and Indonesia (55 million).

Within Asia, the highest penetration is South Korea (82.7%), Japan (80%), Singapore (77.2%), Taiwan (70%) and Hong Kong (68.7%). China has 38.4% Internet penetration.

However, the highest number of Facebook users in Asia is India (45 million), Indonesia (43 million) and the Philippines (27 million). Asia has 195 million Facebook users as at March 2012, or 23.3% of 835 million worldwide, compared to 44.8% penetration in Internet usage. The reason is of course Facebook is not used in China, but even then, there are 447,000 recorded users, less than the number in Cambodia (449,000).

Did you realise that 26.8% of Internet users are English-speaking (565 million), and 24.2% are Chinese speaking (510 million). The third most important language is Spanish (165 million). The Malay language, which is common to Indonesia and Malaysia, is not counted yet among the top 10 languages, mainly because the penetration of the Internet in Indonesia (245 million people) is only 22.4%.

Malaysia has a web usage rate of 61%, with over 17 million people online. The Post-Industrial Society has already arrived in the advanced countries, with the service sector accounting for 76.7% of US GDP, compared with only 1.2% for agriculture and 22.1% in industry. Employment in the service sector already accounted for 77% of total employment in the United States, with the increase in the service sector employment driving employment growth in the coming years.

Within the service sector, three sectors - education services, healthcare and professional and business services (all knowledge industries) are expected to grow at double the speed of employment of the US employment as a whole. In contrast, manufacturing employment is only 10% of total employment in the United States, compared with 28% employed in manufacturing in China. But the service sector in China accounts for only 43% of GDP, compared with 55.2% for India.

What is the relationship between information, knowledge and value creation?

In 1991, one of the pioneers on information theory, Robert Lucky, argued that the information value chain is a pyramid, with the bottom data having no value, classified data becoming valued information, with applied knowledge (technology) having more value, and wisdom, the highest value, being learnt, experienced and useful not only to understand but perhaps predict events.

What the Internet revolution has achieved is to distribute information and knowledge very quickly to the masses across the world. Indeed, the main benefit of the Internet is that it broke down “silos” of specialised information and data that could be shared and used by everyone with access to it.

Indeed, the Internet has enabled “Wiki-knowledge production”, which has produced a huge public good, available to all, with free input by thousands of anonymous volunteers. Public goods are no longer produced by governments, universities or firms, but by the collaboration of thousands of empowered individuals.

There is no doubt that as Asia ponders its own Post-Industrial Society, how it adapts to the new knowledge economy will make a difference between future success or failure.

Leading economies like Singapore and South Korea have devoted tremendous resources into education, research and development in key areas. South Korea even revived its Five-Year Plans to transform itself into a high growth, high knowledge green economy.

Both the Chinese and Indian 12th Five-Year Plans have ambitions to become creative and innovative economies.

In this regard, it is useful to compare and contrast the IBM way towards innovation and value creation versus the Indian approach. In the IBM book Making the World Better (2011), it uses a methodology insiders call SMUBA, an acronym for Seeing, Mapping, Understanding, Believing and Acting.

It is a process to master complex systems and to move from data, analytics and implementation.

Multinationals like IBM now realise that it is impossible to innovate alone by having centralised research laboraties the work is shared and done through key research labs spread throughout the world, through connecting research to product development, academic and government collaboration, internal collaboration across departments and labs, collaboration with clients, innovation by acquisition and open innovation.

In contrast, the Indian model of innovation and value creation is distinct in three ways producing frugal, affordable solutions for the masses without compromising quality, innovation in organisational and process models that improve quality and service delivery, and innovations in the process of innovation (frugal cost solutions through frugal cost of innovation).

The race is already on to produce Asian multinationals and create products to compete with Apple, Amazon, Google or Facebook.

The setback that Samsung faced recently will probably accelerate that process of innovation and competition across Asia.

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is president of Fung Global Institute.

Related posts:
Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win 
Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android  
Apple patent claims stifling innovation; Japan court rules in favour of Samsung 

Apple patent claims stifling innovation; Japan court rules in favour of Samsung

Is Apple stifling innovation?

A US jury decision against Samsung and a Japanese court decision for the Korean conglomerate raise questions over the entire patent issue

WOULD anyone have expected the Apple-Samsung case to be decided in favour of Samsung by a US court in a jury verdict and against Apple, which is by now even more American than apple pie? I certainly didn’t.

But there is an appeal on the cards and it is still anyone’s guess if Apple will be allowed to claim such things as shape and “pinch to zoom out” as its right. But if it is, then that’s a big setback for other smartphones.

Samsung, however, scored a victory in a Tokyo court which ruled yesterday that the Korean electronics giant, and supplier to Apple, did not violate any patents. That victory will no doubt raise questions as to how fair the US jury was in making an award in favour of Apple, including US$1bil in damages.

The US decision means eventually consumers there may have to pay more for Apple’s iPhone, iPod and devices because others may not be able to emulate features that may have made their devices a success. That will have repercussions on prices elsewhere as well.

In the motor industry there have been many trends in shape over the years, moving from angular to rounded designs. If some car company had decided to sue every other car manufacturer for a similar look and feel and succeeded, car shapes may have had great difficulty evolving.

But the best manufacturers of cars did not. In fact some of them deliberately did not register safety patents just so that others could use the innovations to increase passenger safety.

If Samsung is said to have infringed on shape, then there are a number of other manufacturers who are in trouble too. Rectangular faces with rounded edges are a natural evolution in the mobile phone industry. Certainly, other manufacturers are going to hope there will be a reversal on appeal.

Apple did not invent the touch screen. Thus, it seems strange that it has a patent to “pinch to zoom” which is basically one way of many ways to use a screen. That’s like patenting a particular method of driving a car!

Apple has already followed up on its US victory, seeking an injunction to prevent Samsung from selling eight of its smartphones in the United States including some in the best-selling Galaxy range.

However, hearing of the injunction will only be in December and some of Samsung’s models may be phased out by then, which offers some consolation for Samsung.

Some US commentators view the case as a proxy war against another US company Google which makes the Android operating system used in Samsung, HTC and other smartphones.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle says that the late Apple chief executive Steve Jobs was once a friend of Google’s co-founders but considered Google’s move into mobile a betrayal that demanded revenge.

“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product,” he told his biographer Walter Isaacson. “I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

But despite the nice rhetoric, revenge from the grave it is not. Apple’s strategy seems quite clear cut. Patent everything. Then tie up competitors in court if there is any semblance of product infringement and keep its competitive advantage intact as long as possible.

Reports put its profit margins on its iPhone at as high as 50%, a huge mark-up in a cutthroat market which it has been able to achieve by parlaying an excellent product with some very deft marketing and public relations.

That made it the biggest company in the world. Many would say that the product, however, is not necessarily the best anymore if ever it was, especially since competitors are fast catching up with their own nifty designs and features. And marketing and PR too – Galaxy is getting a name for itself and no doubt the cases around the world will help.

Thus it makes much economic sense for Apple to prolong this by any legal means it can for as long as possible. Does Apple care that it may be stifling innovation, raising costs and hurting consumers in the process?

Probably not. And why should it? It is a company based on the profit motive. But it needs to remember that all publicity is not good publicity and if it gets a reputation as a bully, its entire image and that of its products could change.

American companies can carry this patent thing too far and they have. Recall a few years ago when some of them tried to patent the production of pesticides from neem trees. For thousands of years, extracts from the leaves of the neem have been used for precisely that.

The American jury system cannot but be expected to favour a US icon such as Apple which is seen as brash, innovative and successful, the very image of the US itself. But that’s not going to be the case in the rest of the world. And even in the US, if learned judges make the decisions instead of a jury, the results may well be different.

Really, no one is going to benefit and there may well be detriment, if we allow patents to get the better of us and stifle innovation and hinder the development of new products and services at lower costs.
It would be a travesty of sorts and ironic indeed if Apple is now seen as a technology inhibitor instead. Beware!

A QUESTION OF BUSINESS By P. GUNASEGARAM starbiz@thestar.com.my

P Gunasegaram is an iPhone user but only because the service provider gave such a good deal.

 Japanese court rules for Samsung over Apple

In this Aug. 25, 2011 file photo a lawyer holds an Apple iPad and a Samsung Tablet-PC at a court in Duesseldorf, Germany. The Duesseldorf state court ruled Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012, that neither the South Korean company‘s Galaxy Tab 10.1 nor the Galaxy Tab 8.9 could be sold in Germany because they were in violation of unfair competition laws. A German appeals court has upheld a decision prohibiting Samsung Electronics Co. from selling two of its tablet computers in Germany, agreeing with Apple Inc. that they too closely resemble the iPad2. (AP)

Samsung wins one battle in the multinational conflict over patent and innovation

By Jeong Nam-ku, Tokyo correspondent

A Japanese court has ruled in favor of Samsung over Apple in a patent lawsuit. In the August 31 verdict, Tamotsu Shoji, the Tokyo District judge, declined Apple’s claim that “8 models of Samsung Galaxy series infringed on Apple’s patents.”

Apple had sued Samsung for infringing on its synchronization of music and other data with remote servers. It asserted that “Samsung’s products use Apple’s technologies of synchronization, which constitutes patent infringement,” and demanded both compensation of 100 million Japanese Yen (around US$1.27 million) and a block on eight Samsung products.

According to Jiji Press, judge Tamotsu stated, “Samsung’s products are technologically distinct from Apple and can’t be considered infringements.”

As a first trial, this does not hold much importance beyond being an indication of what the final verdict might end up being. However, because the verdict ordered a ‘dismissal’ on Apple’s injunction, there is only a slight possibility for an overturn in the final verdict.

Apple has also sued Samsung for infringing on its ‘bounce back (technology that springs back when the document has reached the end)’ patent, a claim that is still ongoing.

This verdict is the first ruling out of the 9 lawsuits Apple and Samsung Electronics have against each other. Samsung also filed lawsuits against Apple in April and October of 2011, arguing that Apple also infringed on 6 of Samsung’s patents.

Samsung and Apple have ongoing lawsuits in different 10 countries. In the US, a judge ruled that Samsung had infringed Apple patents, ordering the Korean electronics giant to pay $1.05 billion in damages.  

Translated by Yoo Hey-rim, Hankyoreh English intern

Related posts:
Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win 
Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android system 
US Stocks dominate; Korean share drops after US's ruling on Apple-Samsung patent wars 
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free? 
US launches financial attacks against its allies! 

Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win

Just like Microsoft, Apple's evolution from smart tech company to global uber-brand contains the seeds of its own destruction

The risk for Apple is that it focuses more and more on intellectual property rights – filing patents and litigating – than it does on product innovation. Photograph: Ahn Young-Joon/AP

Apple came close to destroying its business in the late 1980s by pursuing a suit against Microsoft claiming that Windows infringed the look and feel of the Mac desktop metaphor. Apple focused its hopes and business future on this lawsuit, while its market share dwindled. Rather than competing, it litigated. And lost.

Last week, it litigated against Samsung over its iPhone design and won.

The first justifiable conclusion might be that big companies get their way. The second might reasonably be that Apple doesn't change much: its business model remains aggressive self-righteousness. The third is what everybody knows: patent rules and philosophy are all screwed up.

As for the first point, Apple is not just a big company, but the biggest. And it is not just the biggest American company, but the most American company. It has entered a rarefied brand status in which it is now almost synonymous with American virtue: American as Apple. Its good design sense has become a major point of American pride, if not nationalism.

The brand is a national asset. Apple is AT&T in its pre-break-up from; it's GM, in its what's-good-for-General-Motors-is-good-for-the-country stage; it's United Fruit when it made US foreign policy; it's Microsoft when desktop computing was transforming the world.

 Commercial omnipotence

This is about as close to commercial omnipotence as it gets. Its unassailability, its right to be preternaturally aggressive, is built into its share price. We believe in Apple. So let us briefly consider the chance for a Korean company defending itself against (or, perish the thought, challenging) the greatest American company of the age in the eyes of an American jury.

And then, there's the self-righteousness. Apple is one of the most aggressive intellectual property litigators of all time. Its major moves have not been about protecting precise technical innovations, but about claiming the much softer zone of look and feel.

It sues for brand rather than engineering. It has pioneered a new modern sensibility: taste is what's most valuable; identity is king. It's sued about the lower case "i"; it's sued about the word "pod"; it's sued New York City over the "big Apple"; it's sued over using the words "app store".

This fierce defensiveness might be rightly understood in a psychological sense: Apple itself is based on stolen iconography. There was first the Beatle's Apple and there was Xerox PARC's desktop design.

Apple's self-righteousness masks its guilt. (It may be sheepish, too, about being more of a marketing organization than a technology company.) What's more, it knows better than anybody that if you relax your vigilance, somebody can easily walk off with what you've done – and improve it.

And then, in the algebra of Samsung's loss and Apple's victory, there's patent hell. Or absurdity.

 System of litigation

Patents are, arguably, no longer a system of protection; they are a system of litigation. Great numbers of patents are now filed, in an over-burdened system, to protect not innovations but the right to litigate over innovations. Indeed, any patent of value will ultimately be litigated.

What's more, as the system has become ever more over-taxed, as technology itself has become more complex, the ill-equipped and under-trained bureaucracy has increasingly taken to giving patents to wide-ranging abstractions.

Design concepts, behavior adjustments, and new approaches to problem solving are all patentable innovations. The system itself assumes that litigation is the check on the system. Which means, fundamentally, that the litigant with the most resources and greatest status wins.

But let us not argue the case that all this quite obviously impedes innovation and is part of a new unreal property land grab – not about technology at all, but about intellectual property: an effort to privatize much of what was once understood to be shared and public (indeed, not ownable, like the shape of the iPhone). But rather, for a moment, let's look at this as a form of hubris that has inevitable consequences.

The Apple that has won against Samsung is the same Apple that lost against Microsoft. In other words, it is the kind of company that, through sheer willfulness, discipline, and perfectionism, can achieve brand hegemony of a singular type. But it is, too, the kind of company – the exact sort of company – that becomes, perhaps inevitably becomes, the bete noire of consumerists, regulators and, of course, most of all, its competitors.

This is the story between the lines of its great victory and its further share price surge. On the one hand, there is this seemingly golden company. On the other hand, there is anybody with any sense of history knowing this is going to end badly.
  
American capitalism

Companies that acquire the nation's imprimatur often, if not invariably, over-reach. It is a characteristic of American capitalism: the price of getting really big and overbearing is that you incur an inverse reaction. In the early 1990s, an ambitious department of justice (a Republican administration DOJ at that) commenced its assault on Microsoft.

For better or worse, by the time the feds were finished, the company, with its rotten operating system, besieged and beleaguered, had become just one of many not-very-adept players in the space – an unimaginable outcome if you remember the once God-like power and scorched-earth wrath of Microsoft.

Apple, and its rotten phone, have a ways to go. But karma should not be underestimated as a factor in this game.

• • By Michael Wolff
  • guardian.co.uk

 Related posts:
 Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android system
US Stocks dominate; Korean share drops after US's ruling on Apple-Samsung patent wars
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?   

The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?

The US's draft TPP deal may grant new patent privileges and restrict net freedom, but it's secret – unless you're a multinational CEO

Patent protection increases what patients pay for drugs in the United States by close to $270bn a year (1.8% of GDP). Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

"Free trade" is a sacred mantra in Washington. If anything is labeled as being "free trade", then everyone in the Washington establishment is required to bow down and support it. Otherwise, they are excommunicated from the list of respectable people and exiled to the land of protectionist Neanderthals.

This is essential background to understanding what is going on with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a pact that the United States is negotiating with Australia, Canada, Japan and eight other countries in the Pacific region. The agreement is packaged as a "free trade" agreement. This label will force all of the respectable types in Washington to support it.

In reality, the deal has almost nothing to do with trade: actual trade barriers between these countries are already very low. The TPP is an effort to use the holy grail of free trade to impose conditions and override domestic laws in a way that would be almost impossible if the proposed measures had to go through the normal legislative process. The expectation is that by lining up powerful corporate interests, the governments will be able to ram this new "free trade" pact through legislatures on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

As with all these multilateral agreements, the intention is to spread its reach through time. That means that anything the original parties to the TPP accept is likely to be imposed later on other countries in the region, and quite likely, on the rest of the world.

Government secrets
 
At this point, it's not really possible to discuss the merits of the TPP since the governments are keeping the proposed text a secret from the public. Only the negotiators themselves and a select group of corporate partners have access to the actual document. The top executives at General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and Pfizer probably all have drafts of the relevant sections of the TPP. However, the members of the relevant congressional committees have not yet been told what is being negotiated.

A few items that have been leaked give us some insight as to the direction of this pact. One major focus is will be stronger protection for intellectual property. In the case of recorded music and movies, we might see provisions similar to those that were in the Stop Online Privacy Act (Sopa). This would make internet intermediaries like Google, Facebook and, indeed, anyone with a website into a copyright cop.

Since these measures were hugely unpopular, Sopa could probably never pass as a standalone piece of legislation. But tied into a larger pact and blessed with "free trade" holy water, the entertainment industry may be able to get what it wants.

The pharmaceutical industry is also likely to be a big gainer from this pact. It has decided that the stronger patent rules that it inserted in the 1995 WTO agreement don't go far enough. It wants stronger and longer patent protection and also increased use of "data exclusivity". This is a government-granted monopoly, often as long as 14 years, that prohibits generic competitors from entering a market based on another company's test results that show a drug to be safe and effective.

Note that stronger copyright and patent protection, along with data exclusivity, is the opposite of free trade. They involve increased government intervention in the market; they restrict competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.

In fact, the costs associated with copyright and patent protection dwarf the costs associated with the tariffs or quotas that usually concern free traders. While the latter rarely raise the price of a product by more than 20-30%, patent protection for prescription drugs can allow drugs to sell for hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars per prescription when they would sell for $5-10 as a generic in a free market.

Patent protection

Patent protection increases what patients pay for drugs in the United States by close to $270bn a year (1.8% of GDP). In addition to making drugs unaffordable to people who need them, the economic costs implied by this market distortion are enormous.

There are many other provisions in this pact that are likely to be similarly controversial. The rules it creates would override domestic laws on the environment, workplace safety, and investment. Of course, it's not really possible to talk about the details because there are no publicly available drafts.

In principle, the TPP is exactly the sort of issue that should feature prominently in the fall elections. Voters should have a chance to decide if they want to vote for candidates who support raising the price of drugs for people in the United States and the rest of the world, or making us all into unpaid copyright cops. But there is no text and no discussion in the campaigns – and that is exactly how the corporations who stand to gain want it.

There is one way to spoil their fun. Just Foreign Policy is offering a reward, now up to $21,100, to WikiLeaks if it publishes a draft copy of the pact. People could add to the reward fund, or if in a position to do so, make a copy of the draft agreement available to the world.

Our political leaders will say that they are worried about the TPP text getting in the hands of terrorists, but we know the truth: they are afraid of a public debate. So if the free market works, we will get to see the draft of the agreement.

• • By Dean Baker
  • guardian.co.uk
  •  
  Related posts:
  
  • Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android system
  • US Stocks dominate; Korean share drops after US's ruling on Apple-Samsung patent wars
• • US launches financial attacks against its allies!

US launches financial attacks against its allies!

The United States and Britain have claimed they have “special relations” for a long period. But recently, the United States has cracked down on large British banks successively.

Barclays Bank was accused of manipulating the interest rate. HSBC Bank was charged of laundering money for drug cartels. Presently, Standard Chartered Bank also turns into the target of U.S. Financial Regulatory Agency.

The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) said that since Standard Chartered Bank violated the U.S. Anti-Money Laundering Law and sanctions law against Iran, its business license would be revoked. At first, the Standard Chartered Bank denied the accusation and wanted to file a counterclaim. Experts in the City of London also blamed the DFS for its dictatorship. But a dramatic change subsequently occurred. The Standard Chartered Bank accepted the solution of being fined 340 million U.S. dollars and saved its license in the New York City.

Regarding the attack, the British government has not responded.

Why did U.S. Financial Regulatory Agency crack down upon large British banks one after another? Why did British government tolerate these attacks silently? 

For the United States, there are three reasons.

Politically, in the general election year, the United States does not have the energy to launch a military operation against Iran and therefore it pays more attention to the implementation of sanctions against Iran.

Diplomatically, the United States wants to warn large European banks not to take any chance on the sanctions against Iran, which also frightens other European allies of the United States.

Financially, striking large British banks and belittling the role of Britain as the global financial center are favorable for the Wall Street.

On the British side, although the financial circle opposed that the United States attacked the British banks with sanctions law as an excuse, it did not mention the British banks’ pursuit of profits regardless of professional ethics. That is the reason why the Britain still resorted to the fastest resolution of the scandal in face of U.S. “extortion”.

Britain is not the only country having “special relations” with the United States. Recently, U.S. Financial Regulatory Agency pays close attention to the Deutsche Bank. Obviously, neither Standard Chartered Bank nor the Deutsche Bank is the last target of the United States.

Read the Chinese version: 美国向盟友挥起“金融大棒”, source: People's Daily Overseas Edition, author: Li Wenyun
 Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related posts:

The Libor fuss! 
The Standard Chartered Debacle; How Not To Go After A Big Bank?
Standard Chartered Bank shares plunge on laundering charges
Anarchy in the financial markets!
Libor scandal blows to British banking system
HSBC exposed: Drug money banking, terror dealings ...
HSBC's US$2b cover Money is for cost of US probe and ...
Moody's downgrades 15 major banks: Citigroup, HSBC ...

No education like British education?

I READ with dismay the report “Consider other countries instead of Britain for further studies” (The Star, Aug 22 - see below) suggesting that Malaysian students turn their backs on British institutions of education because of the adverse impact of the British Security Policy on some students.

Such a notion ignores Malaysia’s association with Britain for over 200 years.

Unlike some colonial powers, Britain has stood the test of time in being a strong ally of Malaysia.

They stood by us in one of the most challenging times of the nation by fighting alongside in defending the country against a formidable communist insurgency in which many of them lost their lives, including Sir Henry Gurney the British High Commissioner who was gunned down in 1951.

Jalan Templer in Petaling Jaya stands as a legacy of the contributions of this general to this cause.

It’s easy enough for those who did not live through those anguishing times to brush this aside as the sentimental musings of the past.

Following independence, instead of abandoning the country like some colonial powers, Britain continued to prepare Malaysians to fill the void by training Malaysians in every sphere of education and training to put the nation on its feet, such as the Colombo Plan and thousands of educational aid in the form of subsidies and sponsorships.

Britain has some of the oldest and highly reputable globally recognised institutions of higher learning that have not lost any quality over time despite present-day economic constraints that have put pressure on educational institutions the world over.

The world is a rapidly changing place, burgeoning populations, factional wars and economic pressures are seeing people movement both legally and illegally in unprecedented numbers.

Most seeking a better life and refuge in developed democracies, are going to desperate lengths to get in, by forged or stolen documents and destroying their identifications so as not be be returned to their country of origin.

Western democracies are in a particularly vulnerable position because of the committed values they hold, of freedom and human rights, against people who grossly abuse those values.

Hardened by defiant illegals, who often challenge immigration policies in court through legal aid funded by taxpayers in host countries, border security authorities who have no way of telling the genuine from the bogus, tend to take a hard line in implementing rules to the letter.

As it is the nature of things, well meaning people sometimes become indignant victims of regulations.

The offence felt by honest people who are affected by the application of these regulations is understandable.

But to suggest that Britain should be bypassed as a centre of learning for self-centred reasons, without understanding the reason for these policies, is to mislead prospective students from securing a time- tested quality of education.

PAT ABRAHAMS
Melbourne, Australia

Consider other countries instead of Britain for further studies

SOON, thousands of our youths will leave for Britain to further their studies either on scholarships or self-funded. A lot of money will be spent.

While the majority of the British educational establishments may give value for the money we are spending, there are other choices with the same or even better institutions where we can send our youngsters.

If we must have English as the medium of higher education, places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the United States should be considered instead of Britain.

I am advising Malaysian students to choose Britain last for further studies. I am not anti-British or trying to repeat the call of our fourth Prime Minister.

I am giving this advice simply because since the formation of the British Border Agency to deal with visa applications, things have really deteriorated to a very sad state for anyone trying to go for studies or are already studying in Britain.

The British Border Agency is treating Malaysians and any other non-European students as if we are asylum seekers. The inefficiency of the agency in dealing with visa applications makes one wonder if Britain is still a developed country.

Malaysians can now get our international passports within a couple of hours, but the British Border Agency can take a whole month just to let you know that your application is rejected because you missed out on some information.You then need to make a fresh application and pay new application fees.

While it may be a pain getting a student visa to Britain, one can get an Australian visa through online application. So if there is any doubt, just that alone should make one choose Australia instead of Britain.

For those already in Britain and hope to stay back to gain work experience, again you may be disappointed. Even if you manage to get a job, the Border Agency may make life quite difficult for you.

I know of a medical graduate who got a job for two intern years. The Border Agency gave her a work visa two weeks short of two years.

After working a few years there, the same doctor needed to renew her visa which was expiring. Due to technical error, the visa was denied, and this despite that her job contract was still valid. She had to get a lawyer to seek redress in the court just to stay back in Britain.

The worst and the most cruel case I know involves another student stranded in Britain during the long summer break. This poor girl lost her passport, which was replaced without much hassle.

However as her student visa was in the lost passport, she had to submit an application to have her visa in the new passport. She is there on a valid visa which should be in the system of the British Border Agency, yet her application which was submitted more than two months ago is still pending attention.

The Australian government from next year will allow foreign graduates to stay back up to four years after graduating to work. The immigration office is student-friendly.

So my advice to all those planning to go overseas to study is, please just exclude Britain.

GCK Ipoh

Related posts:

Malaysian education is too Western-centric, ignorance of Asian values, etc!
Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality ... 
Malaysian Universities need decolonization, relook the ... 
Top 10 universities in South East Asia, Malaysia not in! 
Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need ...

Tesco faces £200,000 fine over illegal foreign workers

Tesco could be fined up to £200,000 after foreign students at one of its warehouses were found to be working illegally, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Tesco said it was "co-operating fully" with the UKBA, adding that it had tightened procedures to tackle illegal workers, which it did not condone employing. Photo: PA

Authorities found the students, of almost a dozen nationalities, were working significantly longer hours than their visas allowed at the warehouse operated by Britain’s biggest supermarket chain.

The breaches were discovered after immigration officials swooped on the Tesco.com building in Croydon, south London, last month.

UK Border Agency officials arrested 20 of the students for alleged breaches of visa terms that restricted the amount of hours they could work.

It is understood that at least seven of the students, none of whom has been identified, have been deported. It follows Home Office operations to put a stop to “visa abuse”.

Officials discovered the students, who were predominantly of Bangladeshi and Indian origin, had been working up to three-and-a-half times longer than their visas allowed.

By Andrew Hough
- The Telegraph

Malaysian education is too Western-centric, ignorance of Asian values, etc!

A Merdeka of the mind

Our education is too Western-centric, aping Western universities and showing ignorance of Asian and African contributions to knowledge.

AS we celebrate 55 years of political independence, we may note the blessings of peace and prosperity in our beloved land. But we also need to reflect on some unfulfilled dimensions of independence.

If independence is autonomy or freedom from the control of another nation, then we Malaysians are hardly free.

The basic assumptions of our political, economic and educational systems are dictated by Western, especially Anglo-American, hegemony. Politically we are free but enslavement of the mind has hardly ceased.

A slave mentality or Western/Euro-centrism need not be a conscious option. It is rooted in our psychology of dependence on, and blind reverence for, everything Western.

Syed Hussein Alatas calls it “the captive mind”. For Ward Churchill, modern intellectual discourse and higher education are “White Studies”.

Hundreds of years ago, the coloniser seized not only land but minds, monopolising information sources and undermining indigenous know­ledge.

For Frantz Fanon, the colonised was “elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country’s cultural standards”.

Ngugi wa Thiong says “it is the final triumph of a system of domination, when the dominated start singing its virtues”.

So 55 years after independence, our public figures are still enamoured with the colonial tune. Their intellectual discourses have three tendencies.

First, the Western worldview and its assumptions are blindly aped. Second, we are ignorant of Asian and African roots of knowledge and Eastern contributions to civilisation. Third, there is hardly any critique of Western theories in the light of our own realities.

Take Western-centrism in our educational institutions. Yusef Progler finds that in whatever field of study, a course in most Asian and African universities follows a similar path.

“It will first identify the great white European or American men of each discipline and then drill their theories and practices as if these were universal”, while ignoring knowledge from other civilisations.

Government recognition of foreign degrees is skewed in favour of Anglo-American awards. Eminent citadels of learning in Asia and Africa are largely ignored.

The favoured destination for JPA-sponsored postgraduate scholars is Europe or the United States. The external examiners and visiting professors are mostly from Britain, the US or Australia. Asian scholars are generally excluded from such honours or offered lesser terms.

Intellectual grovelling before Western experts remains as deeply ingrained as during the British Raj. A few years ago, Cherie Blair was invited to lead the arguments in a case before our courts even when scores of eminent local lawyers were available.

In any prestigious lecture series, the guest of honour is invariably a Westerner, sometimes of dubious credentials. For example, Tony Blair was invited by a local NGO to deliver a lecture.

But when Mugabe and Bashar were scheduled to come, concern was expressed, and rightly so. The crimes of Western leaders may be ignored, but we jump up to take a principled stand against Asian and African miscreants.

Our legal system remains British-oriented. In the English fashion of Austinian positivism, the concept of law is tied to the commands of the political sovereign even though most Asians and Africans regard religion and custom as part of the seamless web of the law.

The Civil Law Act continues its worship of outdated British precedents even though we have greater affinity with many other constitutional systems like India’s.

The Legal Profession Act continues to permit British graduates to be called to the Malaysian Bar without undergoing a bridging course. A key component of the course should be a study of the Malaysian Consti­tution.

In our law faculties, legal education is as much a colonial construct as during the Raj. The course structure and content, the book list and the icons are mostly Western.

A typical course on jurisprudence in Malaysia often begins with Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Bentham, Pound, Weber, Ehrlich, Durkheim, Marx, etc.

The Mahabharata, the Arthashastra, the Book of Mencius, the Analects of Confucius and the treatises of Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Jose Rizal, Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Yanagita Kunio and Naquib al-Attas are not included.

Chinese, Indian and Persian universities predated European ones and provided paradigms for early Western education. Yet our universities ignore centuries of enlightenment in China, India, Japan, Persia and West Asia.

It is as if all things good and wholesome originated with Western civilisation and the East was, and is, an intellectual desert. The truth is other­wise.

In science, Galileo, Newton and Einstein illuminated the firmament but not much is known about Al-hazen and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. Western chemistry was preceded by Eastern alchemy, algebra had African roots.

The philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Sartre and Goethe can be matched by Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Mulla Sadra, Shenhui, al-Mutanabbi and Kalidasa. Durkheim’s and Weber’s sociology must compete with Ibn Khaldun’s.

Freudian psychology had its corrective in Buddhist wisdom. The Cartesian medical model has its Eastern counterpart in ayurvedic, unani and herbal methods.

Very few know that Arab Muslims were central to the making of medieval Europe.

A slavish mimicking of Western norms of government, law and economics prevents us from tackling our own problems like poverty and unsustainable development.

Our attitude leaves us vulnerable to many predatory policies of Western-dominated institutions and processes. Transnational corporations dominate our economies.

Many Asian and African nations choke under the debt stranglehold. The West can bring down our economies with currency speculation, hedge funds, piracy of indigenous resources and trade boycotts as new forms of tyranny.

Yet we are too scared or ashamed to express our own views. Basing our life on other nations’ opinions is slavery.

As Aug 31 approaches, we must resolve to free our minds from Western intellectual hegemony. A Merdeka of the mind will put us on the path to that.

Comment
Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi
> The author wishes all readers Salam Lebaran and Salam Kemerdekaan.

Related posts:
Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality ... 
Malaysian Universities need decolonization, relook the ... 
Top 10 universities in South East Asia, Malaysia not in! 
Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need ...

Riding the hi-tech waves

Penangite to return home soon as R&D director after 37 years abroad

GEORGE TOWN: A small electric fan and transistor radio were the only ‘luxury items’ his family possessed, but today, US-based Yong Kit Chin is a high-tech success story.

The 56-year-old National Instruments (NI) R&D director recalled that back then, his father owned a small shoe store in George Town.

The business was barely enough to feed the family and pay the workers’ wages.

“On occasions, when my father couldn’t sell a single pair of shoes and he had very little cash for groceries, we’d have only vegetarian meals,” he said.

Yong said the family didn’t own a car or a telephone and they had their first refrigerator and television set when he was 17.

“Hence, my siblings and I were brought up to be thrifty and we vowed to work hard to improve our lot.

“We couldn’t afford tuition classes, so we learned to be independent and to work harder than other kids,” he said.

When he was about 10, Yong became very interested in technology.

“Later, I became fascinated by electricity and would dismantle and re-assemble the rice cooker, electric iron and radio,” he said in an e-mail interview.

He remembered being “so thrilled” when his uncle gave him a RM5 reward for repairing a transistor radio’s corroded battery terminal.

The former Chung Ling High School boy did well in his school exams and was among the state’s top MCE achievers invited by then Chief Minister, Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu, to a tea reception at his official residence to celebrate the achievement.

He left the country in the mid-70s after securing a scholarship from Columbia University in New York and has been living overseas for 37 years.

“It was a totally new experience as I moved from the lovely and peaceful Penang island to the hustle and bustle of Manhattan,” he said.

Upon graduating with Master and Bachelor degrees in Electrical Engineering, he worked as a Hewlett-Packard production engineer in Singapore.

After over three decades of technical, business and managerial experience in the high-tech industries abroad, Yong is coming home.

He joined NI, a pioneer in modular and software-based instrumentation in Austin, last year.

Yong will return to his home state by the end of September as R&D director at NI’s facility here.

“I am very excited as I finally have the opportunity to work and live in Penang since I left for studies in the United States.

“I am willing to be a mentor to young engineers in Malaysia and share my experiences with them,” he added.

Yong said the thing he missed most about Malaysia was Penang’s delicious hawker food.

“The experience of savouring a plate of freshly prepared ‘char koay teow’ and sipping a cup of ‘teh tarik’ while chatting with friends is just priceless,” he added.

By CHRISTINA CHIN sgchris@thestar.com.my  

Related post:
National Instruments to set up its largest R&D facility outside US in Penang
 Supporting Engineering and Science Education Worldwide