It is entertaining each time an X-rated attempt
appear to be serious in its usual characteristic ways of
over-reaching itself, it will get hung up with its own grand
ideas.
I'm with you on this - trade barriers such as taxes, tarriffs,
etc.
Incubation units for creativity to bloom such as the model
used by Singapore are protected based on intellectual property
rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world.
How many WTOs exist around the world ?
No harm if the 17 year old can create a programme that will
help make the ipod a best seller. This had been the way and
how capitalists had prospered and even bought over companies
that had helped.
No sense in charging or jailing the growing adult, unless
he uses and profits from it without respecting intellectual
rights of the owners. That would be criminally wrong regardless of
whatever country he hailed from.
Apple has a separate "APPS Market" for anyone to design a
program that helps to make the iPod the best seller, and Apple
encourages anyone to develop softwares that will make the iPod even
more versatile.
However, in the scenario that TS had suggested, the TS was not
referring to the 17yo designing any softwares to make the iPod any
better.
Instead, TS was raising the subject of a 17yo cracking the
protective code of the iPod and enter the "resident memory area"
that has iPod operating system and electronic codes embedded -
which Apple lay claim to its Intellectual Property Rights.
As mentioned, in my post - anyone who buys a product and send in
the Warranty Card with clauses that limit the Buyer's Rights
in using the product in some ways - must be clear and
satisfied that such limits to the Buyer's Rights will not
infringe or place any limits to the full satisfaction in using
the product.
Such limits to the Buyer's Rights may require the Buyer to
respect the Manufacturer's "Intellectual Property Rights" to
the product operating system, even though title of the
product may have passed on to the Buyer.
In this scenario, the TS had shown Apple requiring any iPod
Buyer not to access the electronic codes that allow the iPod to
function, or face prosecution by Apple.
If the Buyer feels that this demand by the Manufacturer prevent
the full enjoyment of using the product, the Buyer should
then either not buy the product in the first instance, or
return the product for a full refund.
If he meant should Protectionism kill innovation, then
Protectionsim will in fact stifle creativity, simply because
the capitalists will presume they have an infinite market share,
and will not bother to improve.
If you are certain of your stand shown in your
paragraph quoted - are you then not contradicting your first
statement made that - "Incubation
units for creativity to bloom such as the model used by Singapore
are protected based on intellectual property
rights" ?
If you believe that "protectionism kill
innovation" - why will Singapore develop
"incubation units for
creativity" and "protected based on intellectual property rights,
to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world"
?
How did capitalist or capitalism enter your vision
to have "protectionism" benefitting the capitalists and not
motivating the capitalists to improve their
products ?
Can capitalism thrive in a world that is partitioned by
protectionism, or is it not a fact that Capitalists and
Capitalism will thrive better in a world that allow capital to move
freely, and with venture capitalists nurturing
"innovation hubs" that are too high risks for Commercial
Bankers ?
It took research into agriculture yields to make the farmers
squeal in pain like pigs when other nations could plant crops with
bi-annual harvests back in the 60s. And they had to spend more on
their own research to compete against others, when combined with
other improved productive processes from the farmer to the
consumer with a household budget to adhere to.
When farmers squeal in pain - how did you managed to
link the farmers squeal to be like pigs ?
If so, when it is said that girls squeal with laughter - are
they pigs too ?
Do farmers have the capacity to spend any of their own resources
on research to improve agricultural yields, or is this not done on
their behalf by the government as a national project ?
What kind of agricultural farmer can you possibly be
referring to - that can have such a farmer to be
knowledgeable to invest in "research that produces high yields",
modern techniques in "improved
productive processes from the farmer to the consumer with a
household budget to adhere to" ?
Can the Southeast Asian traditional farmer - mostly without
basic education - know anything beyond the planting to harvesting
cycles ?
Or has the efforts of these uneducated farmers not been
guided by the respective Southeast Asian Governments - that
sees the primary agricultural sector as national projects to
increase the yields of the cash crops for exports ?
Similarly, if hi-tech endeavours go the protectionists way, they
will only grow fat and never improve. And it will take another 17
year old bright spark to get them off their arses.
What forms of "protectionists way" are you advocating now
- when in the first opening statement you seem to have lauded the
Singapore way of incubation hubs "protected by intellectual property rights
recognised by WTOs around the world" ?
Has it not been a fact that the leading technological
centers of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the USA continue
to be creative in producing advanced
and improved high tech endeavours every year without
fail, and all done despite the "protective ways" to prevent
industrial espionage or pirating of intellectual property rights
?
Since Bill Gates produced his "operating
system" for the PC and made the PC into a product that started
a global socio-technological revolution, there have been
others that used the PC platform to harness the global energy
of PC users to innovate new approaches that had continuously
brought social and technological change.
These include the bright "young kids" that developed Yahoo!
and Google, introduced Amazon as an electronic platform
for commercial transactinos - even as the "older kids"
continue to improve the CPU and chips to further reduce the
physical size and weight to make it portable, and encourage
its use as a modern lifestyle need.
Has "protectionism" in the various forms of "intellectual
property rights" and "market domination by sheer size" prevent
innovation ?
Thus Protectionism is wrong and MUST never be adopted,
if we are to progress and evolve, regardless of whatever country
one comes from, and the amount of unions they have.
If this statement is to be accepted - should Singapore dismantle
the incubation unit that are "protected based on intellectual property
rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the
world" ?
Patents alone will enrich companies on a world wide scale,
IF intellectual property rights is respected as
China, africa, latin american and some asian states must
be brought to heel with.
Do companies get rich from patents alone ?
Surely, a product that is patented and is not marketable, with
no demand - cannot be of any use to any companies ?
Patents have a time limit - anywhere from 10 to 15 or 20 years,
and without any further improvements that can be seen as
substantially upgrading the original patent design - the patent
will simply run out.
It is during this tenure of the Patent that a company can "get
rich" - and this is subject to the patented product finding useful
applications to be accepted or needed by any market
place.
Patent in itsel cannot possibly protect a company even during
the tenure of the Patent Right - as competitors can study the
patented design, reverse engineer to make improvements or the same
with a tweak difference to serve the same application.
It will require the Company to continuously invest in Research
& Development, and to stay ahead of the pack.
It will require the Company to have success and immediate wide
penetration of the product on a global basis, so as to recover
costs in the shortest time before the life cycle of the product
goes flat.
Patents can hardly be enforced in all corners of the globe, and
it is only smart for patent holders to consider lowering its
selling price to reach a wider market, or have multi-level pricing
for different market place, so as to beat patent infringements.
It is amazing that you never fail with your habit in
selling your grand vision of the event as seen in your
grand standing statements.
Somehow you have the consistent skill to loose yourself on
that big stage that exist in the big hall of your mind.
