Here's an interview with Thomas Friedman in Yale Global Online (18 April 2005). Some quotes, with the issues I see in them italicised:
Lean thinking:
Wal-Mart doesn't make anything. But what they do is draw products from all over the world and get them into stores at incredibly low prices. How do they do that? Through a global supply chain that has been designed down to the last atom of efficiency. So as you take an item off the shelf in New Haven, Connecticut, another of that item will immediately be made of that item in Xianjin, China. So there's perfect knowledge and transparency throughout that supply chain.
International trade vs local social costs:
The consumer in me loves Wal-Mart... And not just me... Some lower-income people are stretching their dollars further because of Wal-Mart...The shareholder in me... loves Wal-Mart... The citizen in me... hates Wal-Mart, because they only cover some 40 percent of their employees with health care... [For the rest,] we tax-payers pay their health care. And the neighbor in me... is very disturbed about Wal-Mart. Disturbed about stories about how they've discriminated against women, disturbed about stories that they've locked employees into their stores overnight, disturbed about how they pay some of their employees. So... I've got multiple identity disorder, because the shareholder and the consumer in me feels one thing, and the citizen and the neighbor in me feel something quite different.
New Growth Theory issues:
What is the mix of assets you need to thrive in a flat world? Money, jobs, and opportunity in the flat world will go to the countries with the best infrastructure, the best education system that produces the most educated work force, the most investor-friendly laws, and the best environment. You put those four things together: quality of environment that attracts knowledgeable people, investment laws that encourage entrepreneurship, education, and infrastructure. So that's really where, in a flat world, the money is going to go.
And I don't really believe much in foreign aid because I think, at the end of the day, that's not how countries grow and get rich. But to the extent that you are going to give foreign aid, it should be to inspire, encourage, and help develop one of those four pillars for whatever developing country you're dealing with. But I do believe in trade, not aid. I think that axiom still applies, even more so in a flat world.
Security:
The flat world is a friend of Infosys and of Al-Qaeda. It's a friend of IBM and of Islamic jihad. Because these networks go both ways. And one thing we know about the bad guys: They're early adopters...
Trade, nationalism and peace:
...what I call the "Dell Theory" – you know, Dell Computers. The Dell Theory says that no two countries that are part of the same global supply chain will ever fight a war as long as they're each still part of that supply chain... here's what I predict: If you do go to war and you're part of one these supply-chains, whatever price you think you're going to pay, you're going to pay ten times more. Once you lose your spot in the supply chain because you've gone to war, the supply chain doesn't come back real soon. They're not going to. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. That's why you really risk a lot. And that's why these supply chains now really mean a lot. They're the new restraints.
Anti-globalization:
The anti-globalization movement ... is basically dead today – because China and India have embraced this process and this project... The anti-globalization movement... [are] all still talking about the IMF and the World Bank and conditionality – as if globalization is all about what the IMF and World Bank impose and force on the developing world. Well when the world is flat, there's a lot more globalization that's about pull. This is people in the developing world – in China, Russia, India, Brazil – wanting to pull down these opportunities.
Intellectual property rights:
Look at what happened in [India] with intellectual property law... there's no question that we did want India to have intellectual property protection to protect our products... But what it turned out was that a lot of Indians wanted it as well because they become innovators themselves. They are now plug-and-playing in this world and they want the intellectual property protections for their innovations.
Failure of Western technical education:
There is a crisis. We're not producing in this country, in America, enough young people going into science and technology and engineering – the fields that are going to be essential for entrepreneurship and innovation in the 21st Century. So we're at a crisis – it's a quiet crisis, as Shirley Ann Jackson from the Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute says. If we don't do something about it, then in 10 to 15 years from now this quiet crisis will be a very big crisis. And that's why my friend Paul Romer at Stanford says – and I totally agree with him – is a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. And right now we're wasting this crisis.
Showing posts with label intellectual property rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual property rights. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2007
New Growth Theory: should we pay handsomely to make ideas free?
When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, his slogan was "education, education, education". We thought he was merely reflecting our discontent with schools, but now I'm not so sure.
In 1994, Gordon Brown was quoting a new economic theory by - google him up - PAUL ROMER. Here is a 2001 interview in Reason Online with Romer. It turns out this may be to New Labour what Sir Keith Joseph’s espousal of monetarism was to Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. “New growth theory” is by Paul Romer, and bears on:
A core debate in this theory is the ownership of knowledge. Romer says that price is both an incentive to the producer, and a means of deciding who gets the product (or what product they choose). An example he gives in his interview is the life-saving treatment for children with diarrhea in poor countries:
...the efficient thing for society is to offer really big rewards for some scientist who discovers an oral rehydration therapy. But then as soon as we discover it, we give the idea away for free to everybody throughout the world and explain "Just use this little mixture of basically sugar and salt, put it in water, and feed that to a kid who's got diarrhea because if you give them pure water you'll kill them."
So with ideas, you have this tension: You want high prices to motivate discovery, but you want low prices to achieve efficient widespread use. You can't with a single price achieve both, so if you push things into the market, you try to compromise between those two, and it's often an unhappy compromise.
Ideas can be duplicated easily and cheaply, but they often cost a lot of money to come up with. For example, pharmaceutical firms do hugely expensive R&D - could they recoup the cost of successful solutions, and all the unsuccessful ones, via a prize competition? What happens if they go bust a yard before the finishing line?
What about areas where the humanitarian argument may be weaker? What if some Far Eastern car factory comes up with a tweak on, say, the Wankel engine design and goes into very successful (and low-labour-cost) production, paying nothing to the people who came up with 99% of the ideas? Sir Tim Berners-Lee (may we never forget his name) gave away the Internet, but should all hard-won knowledge be free?
And what exactly are the implications of a "knowledge economy"? Does State-organised education, with its top-down management, encourage the development of the creativity we need? Do we need 50% of our young people to go to college? Should they choose their subjects, or be told what to learn? Should they be given incentives to study in areas that are thought to be important? How far should we be prepared to fund research that has no immediately foreseeable practical application?
Romer is certainly right in saying that a smart workforce is an asset (and a smart management - we could do with some de-Dilbertising), and that there's lots of potential in continuous, incremental improvement. "Lean thinking" may buy us time in the destabilizing conditions of a globalized market - if we use our brains to improve what's in front of us at work every day, we may not go bust quite as fast as the doomsters fear.
But as the economist himself admits, it's a can of worms.
In 1994, Gordon Brown was quoting a new economic theory by - google him up - PAUL ROMER. Here is a 2001 interview in Reason Online with Romer. It turns out this may be to New Labour what Sir Keith Joseph’s espousal of monetarism was to Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. “New growth theory” is by Paul Romer, and bears on:
- education (a key slogan in Tony Blair's election campaign)
- skills training for workforces (a UK government initiative currently advertised on TV)
- intellectual property rights (relevant to design and patent theft by foreign manufacturers)
- free trade/globalisation
A core debate in this theory is the ownership of knowledge. Romer says that price is both an incentive to the producer, and a means of deciding who gets the product (or what product they choose). An example he gives in his interview is the life-saving treatment for children with diarrhea in poor countries:
...the efficient thing for society is to offer really big rewards for some scientist who discovers an oral rehydration therapy. But then as soon as we discover it, we give the idea away for free to everybody throughout the world and explain "Just use this little mixture of basically sugar and salt, put it in water, and feed that to a kid who's got diarrhea because if you give them pure water you'll kill them."
So with ideas, you have this tension: You want high prices to motivate discovery, but you want low prices to achieve efficient widespread use. You can't with a single price achieve both, so if you push things into the market, you try to compromise between those two, and it's often an unhappy compromise.
Ideas can be duplicated easily and cheaply, but they often cost a lot of money to come up with. For example, pharmaceutical firms do hugely expensive R&D - could they recoup the cost of successful solutions, and all the unsuccessful ones, via a prize competition? What happens if they go bust a yard before the finishing line?
What about areas where the humanitarian argument may be weaker? What if some Far Eastern car factory comes up with a tweak on, say, the Wankel engine design and goes into very successful (and low-labour-cost) production, paying nothing to the people who came up with 99% of the ideas? Sir Tim Berners-Lee (may we never forget his name) gave away the Internet, but should all hard-won knowledge be free?
And what exactly are the implications of a "knowledge economy"? Does State-organised education, with its top-down management, encourage the development of the creativity we need? Do we need 50% of our young people to go to college? Should they choose their subjects, or be told what to learn? Should they be given incentives to study in areas that are thought to be important? How far should we be prepared to fund research that has no immediately foreseeable practical application?
Romer is certainly right in saying that a smart workforce is an asset (and a smart management - we could do with some de-Dilbertising), and that there's lots of potential in continuous, incremental improvement. "Lean thinking" may buy us time in the destabilizing conditions of a globalized market - if we use our brains to improve what's in front of us at work every day, we may not go bust quite as fast as the doomsters fear.
But as the economist himself admits, it's a can of worms.
Friday, July 27, 2007
A Bluffer's Guide, Part Zero
The new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has a reputation for being fearsomely intellectual. In a speech back in 1994 he referred to "post neo-classical endogenous growth theory", a shut-'em-up phrase if ever there was one.
Except with Members of Parliament, who are no strangers to bull, many of them having buffed up their chatter muscles at Oxford and Cambridge. Michael Heseltine (Pembroke College, Oxford), then President of the Board of Trade for the Conservative government, suspected Brown (Edinburgh) had gotten this showy material from his economic adviser, Ed Balls, and drawled, "It's not Brown, it's balls."
For in most cases, you can say it more simply. Or if you prefer, you can go ahead and hit people over the head with it, but be prepared to clarify if challenged.
So I've looked for relatively simple explanations of EGT (shall we who are now in the know agree to use this outsider-excluding acronym?). Here's what I've got so far:
Endogenous growth theory - from Investopedia
And here's something else worth reading, by Gladys We. It is a few pages long, but it explains it well enough so I can understand it - I think.
Politically, it seems EGT can be used as an argument against free trade and intellectual property rights. For the latter, see page 5, point 5; okay to steal someone's ideas, refine them and then copyright them. I'm sure there's Far Eastern firms that'd be fans of this policy; something to advocate amiably over the pre-prandial sherry in the Senior Common Room - until you put it into practice by plagiarizing the Master's work.
UPDATE (Saturday morning):
It's now called "new growth theory". EGT is so last evening.
Except with Members of Parliament, who are no strangers to bull, many of them having buffed up their chatter muscles at Oxford and Cambridge. Michael Heseltine (Pembroke College, Oxford), then President of the Board of Trade for the Conservative government, suspected Brown (Edinburgh) had gotten this showy material from his economic adviser, Ed Balls, and drawled, "It's not Brown, it's balls."
For in most cases, you can say it more simply. Or if you prefer, you can go ahead and hit people over the head with it, but be prepared to clarify if challenged.
So I've looked for relatively simple explanations of EGT (shall we who are now in the know agree to use this outsider-excluding acronym?). Here's what I've got so far:
Endogenous growth theory - from Investopedia
And here's something else worth reading, by Gladys We. It is a few pages long, but it explains it well enough so I can understand it - I think.
Politically, it seems EGT can be used as an argument against free trade and intellectual property rights. For the latter, see page 5, point 5; okay to steal someone's ideas, refine them and then copyright them. I'm sure there's Far Eastern firms that'd be fans of this policy; something to advocate amiably over the pre-prandial sherry in the Senior Common Room - until you put it into practice by plagiarizing the Master's work.
UPDATE (Saturday morning):
It's now called "new growth theory". EGT is so last evening.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The world is flat - or is it? Is Leamer right about Friedman?
Thomas Friedman's book, "The World Is Flat" is a best-seller - Wikipedia summary here. Friedman's related website is here - I think the photograph of the author is interesting, for those who like to read faces.
Last year, Edward Leamer reviewed Friedman somewhat snippily here. Gosh, I wish people could be more succinct. As Byron wrote of Coleridge, "I wish he would explain his explanation". Still, I guess Leamer has to fly the flag for critical scholarship.
The issue is important: does globalization threaten America's standard of living? Free traders say no. But have a look at Figure 6 on page 33 of Leamer, showing global income distribution in 1980, when US per capita GDP was 4 times the world average. That's quite some inequality, and if they were two very different levels of water in the same canal, opening the lock between them would see wealth gush from A to B.
So as barriers to trade are coming down, why hasn't this happened? Leamer says (p.34), "Much of the difference in GDP per capita among countries comes from the greater amounts of physical and human capital in the West, which advantages aren’t going to go away any time soon."
I'm not so sanguine. As regards human capital, I think the East is very keen indeed to increase its investment in education and training, and isn't hampered by notions of equality of outcome for its students. As to industrial capital, we are watching a vast sucking-in of resources, right down to our iron manhole covers, by China and other emerging economies; but also (particularly in China) we see a rapid and determined acquisition of slowly-accrued Western intellectual capital.
I think the catch-up process would be even faster in China if their industries observed patent and copyright more scrupulously, so they weren't almost wiping out each other's profit margins in their domestic market; and financial capital will accumulate far more rapidly when Chinese manufacturers get to keep more of the foreign buyer's price, instead of losing most of the profit to shippers, distributors, marketers and advertisers. If I were Chinese, I'd be looking at those areas for the training of my bright young people; and I bet they are.
Figure 7 on page 35 compares global income distribution in 1980 and 2000. The rich have done fine, the middle earners have made almost no progress, the poor are gradually rising. But when you think about it, maybe the middle is progressing: Western industrial workers are losing their jobs and looking for work in less well-paid service industries, while new industrial jobs are being created abroad. James Kynge ("China Shakes The World") says he sees heavy industry taking over on the Chinese coast, and labour-intensive light industry being forced inland. The move from low-skilled to higher-skilled labour in China is certainly a progression, matched by downward movement in the West. I wonder what the higher end of the graph will look like in another 20 years, when the Chinese have their own armies of industrial tycoons, company VPs, economics professors, investment analysts and marketing experts? I bet they're quite content to watch their coolie-work go to even poorer countries, as long as it doesn't happen too soon in the game.
Leamer admits (p.46): "The real bottom line: we do not know the breadth and intensity of global contestability of US jobs, and until we do, we will not have a real handle on the impact of global competition on the US workforce."
Why is he relaxed? See page 48:
"Finally, I want to comment on what I think is the big issue. It isn’t globalization or a flat world; it’s technology and the post- industrial labor markets.
The US is in the midst of a radical transformation from industrial to post-industrial society. Some of this transition is associated with the movement of mundane manufacturing jobs to low-wage foreign locations, but much of it comes from the dramatic changes in technology in the intellectual services sectors. The policy response to the globalization force is pretty straightforward: we need to make the educational and infrastructure investments that are needed to keep the high-paying non-contestable creative jobs here at home and let the rest of the world knock themselves silly competing for the footloose mundane contestable jobs."
Well, I don't think the rest of the world is quite as silly as that. I don't think Western education systems are geared to excellence, as once they were; so for that reason, as well as IPR enforcement issues, I don't think we can bank on using our intellectual property to sustain our global income differential. I don't think multinational businesses have, or feel they can afford, nationalistic sentiment. And whenever I read statements that start "we need to do x", I get the feeling that x isn't going to happen. Individuals will still make their stellar way, but I can't envision the West as a whole reclining in comfort in a "post-industrial" society.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Last year, Edward Leamer reviewed Friedman somewhat snippily here. Gosh, I wish people could be more succinct. As Byron wrote of Coleridge, "I wish he would explain his explanation". Still, I guess Leamer has to fly the flag for critical scholarship.
The issue is important: does globalization threaten America's standard of living? Free traders say no. But have a look at Figure 6 on page 33 of Leamer, showing global income distribution in 1980, when US per capita GDP was 4 times the world average. That's quite some inequality, and if they were two very different levels of water in the same canal, opening the lock between them would see wealth gush from A to B.
So as barriers to trade are coming down, why hasn't this happened? Leamer says (p.34), "Much of the difference in GDP per capita among countries comes from the greater amounts of physical and human capital in the West, which advantages aren’t going to go away any time soon."
I'm not so sanguine. As regards human capital, I think the East is very keen indeed to increase its investment in education and training, and isn't hampered by notions of equality of outcome for its students. As to industrial capital, we are watching a vast sucking-in of resources, right down to our iron manhole covers, by China and other emerging economies; but also (particularly in China) we see a rapid and determined acquisition of slowly-accrued Western intellectual capital.
I think the catch-up process would be even faster in China if their industries observed patent and copyright more scrupulously, so they weren't almost wiping out each other's profit margins in their domestic market; and financial capital will accumulate far more rapidly when Chinese manufacturers get to keep more of the foreign buyer's price, instead of losing most of the profit to shippers, distributors, marketers and advertisers. If I were Chinese, I'd be looking at those areas for the training of my bright young people; and I bet they are.
Figure 7 on page 35 compares global income distribution in 1980 and 2000. The rich have done fine, the middle earners have made almost no progress, the poor are gradually rising. But when you think about it, maybe the middle is progressing: Western industrial workers are losing their jobs and looking for work in less well-paid service industries, while new industrial jobs are being created abroad. James Kynge ("China Shakes The World") says he sees heavy industry taking over on the Chinese coast, and labour-intensive light industry being forced inland. The move from low-skilled to higher-skilled labour in China is certainly a progression, matched by downward movement in the West. I wonder what the higher end of the graph will look like in another 20 years, when the Chinese have their own armies of industrial tycoons, company VPs, economics professors, investment analysts and marketing experts? I bet they're quite content to watch their coolie-work go to even poorer countries, as long as it doesn't happen too soon in the game.
Leamer admits (p.46): "The real bottom line: we do not know the breadth and intensity of global contestability of US jobs, and until we do, we will not have a real handle on the impact of global competition on the US workforce."
Why is he relaxed? See page 48:
"Finally, I want to comment on what I think is the big issue. It isn’t globalization or a flat world; it’s technology and the post- industrial labor markets.
The US is in the midst of a radical transformation from industrial to post-industrial society. Some of this transition is associated with the movement of mundane manufacturing jobs to low-wage foreign locations, but much of it comes from the dramatic changes in technology in the intellectual services sectors. The policy response to the globalization force is pretty straightforward: we need to make the educational and infrastructure investments that are needed to keep the high-paying non-contestable creative jobs here at home and let the rest of the world knock themselves silly competing for the footloose mundane contestable jobs."
Well, I don't think the rest of the world is quite as silly as that. I don't think Western education systems are geared to excellence, as once they were; so for that reason, as well as IPR enforcement issues, I don't think we can bank on using our intellectual property to sustain our global income differential. I don't think multinational businesses have, or feel they can afford, nationalistic sentiment. And whenever I read statements that start "we need to do x", I get the feeling that x isn't going to happen. Individuals will still make their stellar way, but I can't envision the West as a whole reclining in comfort in a "post-industrial" society.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Marc Faber: consumer spending to decrease
Seeking Alpha's Sunday review of fund manager stock suggestions reveals that Marc Faber expects consumer discretionary spending to decrease:
"He calls for a 10% correction by year-end, with emerging markets down 20%."
That may reduce the monthly trade deficit for a while, but won't turn it into a surplus. China's ultra-low wage costs, combined with what seems to be very loose enforcement of intellectual property rights, are still set to hollow out Western industrial production of all kinds, as James Kynge's book makes abundantly and frighteningly clear.
It's all very well finding ways for individual investors to benefit, but if you haven't got spare money to invest, you can't back the winner in this unequal contest. Without some degree of prosperity, what real peace will our countries have? I'd like to see a credible national economic plan from our politicians.
"He calls for a 10% correction by year-end, with emerging markets down 20%."
That may reduce the monthly trade deficit for a while, but won't turn it into a surplus. China's ultra-low wage costs, combined with what seems to be very loose enforcement of intellectual property rights, are still set to hollow out Western industrial production of all kinds, as James Kynge's book makes abundantly and frighteningly clear.
It's all very well finding ways for individual investors to benefit, but if you haven't got spare money to invest, you can't back the winner in this unequal contest. Without some degree of prosperity, what real peace will our countries have? I'd like to see a credible national economic plan from our politicians.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
US dollar needs to fall; intellectual property needs protection
An interesting report from China Daily yesterday. The American Chamber of Commerce there is asking for less pressure to revalue the renminbi and more for structural reforms in China.
The value of the renminbi is not the answer to everything. If the Chinese yuan rises against the dollar, then Chinese imports will cost more, and America might well cut back; but US industrial exports could be slow to grow because of eroded manufacturing capacity. And a weaker dollar would mean foreigners could bid more for US products (including foodstuffs), so creating price inflation in the US while production lags behind demand.
And there is also the question of just how much the dollar would have to drop to make US products globally competitive anyway. What you could see is Chinese light industrial manufacturers suffer a contraction, losing business to countries that have even lower wage costs, such as Vietnam. When the dust has settled, America's balance of trade crisis could simply have widened from US-China to US-Far East.
So it's not so much the renminbi that has to rise, but the dollar to fall.
Also interesting to see intellectual property rights come to the fore. As America sees her economic strength sapped, she must worry about the scruples of her competitors. If "might makes right", patents and copyright may not be the pension she was hoping for. I did discuss this a while ago (May 23), and think it's an issue to follow.
The value of the renminbi is not the answer to everything. If the Chinese yuan rises against the dollar, then Chinese imports will cost more, and America might well cut back; but US industrial exports could be slow to grow because of eroded manufacturing capacity. And a weaker dollar would mean foreigners could bid more for US products (including foodstuffs), so creating price inflation in the US while production lags behind demand.
And there is also the question of just how much the dollar would have to drop to make US products globally competitive anyway. What you could see is Chinese light industrial manufacturers suffer a contraction, losing business to countries that have even lower wage costs, such as Vietnam. When the dust has settled, America's balance of trade crisis could simply have widened from US-China to US-Far East.
So it's not so much the renminbi that has to rise, but the dollar to fall.
Also interesting to see intellectual property rights come to the fore. As America sees her economic strength sapped, she must worry about the scruples of her competitors. If "might makes right", patents and copyright may not be the pension she was hoping for. I did discuss this a while ago (May 23), and think it's an issue to follow.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
More on Intellectual Property Rights in China
Have a look at this business guide from the US Department of Commerce, for companies wishing to protect their IPR in China. Each country runs by its own rules, together with such international undertakings as it is willing to give; and China's approach to this subject is by no means unique; but it gives one pause for thought. Here's a couple of tasters:
On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated...
There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements...
Patents: China follows a first to file system for patents, which means patents are granted to those that file first even if the filers are not the original inventors...
Trademarks: China has a ‘first-to register’ system that requires no evidence of prior use or ownership, leaving registration of popular foreign marks open to third party...
Copyright: Unlike the patent and trademark protection, copyrighted works do not require registration for protection...
As I said in an earlier post, there may be more to argue about on the first two headings. Yes, there is some system of investigation and redress, but it doesn't necessarily have the rigour and powerful enforcement that Americans would expect in the USA.
On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated...
There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements...
Patents: China follows a first to file system for patents, which means patents are granted to those that file first even if the filers are not the original inventors...
Trademarks: China has a ‘first-to register’ system that requires no evidence of prior use or ownership, leaving registration of popular foreign marks open to third party...
Copyright: Unlike the patent and trademark protection, copyrighted works do not require registration for protection...
As I said in an earlier post, there may be more to argue about on the first two headings. Yes, there is some system of investigation and redress, but it doesn't necessarily have the rigour and powerful enforcement that Americans would expect in the USA.
China and Intellectual Property Rights
One of the issues on the agenda at the Strategic Economic Dialogue between the US and China is action against copyright theft - see the CNN article from last week for a discussion of the problem.
But China is not only acquiring the custom and capital (even the factories) of the West: she is also very keen to catch up on know-how. The arguments at the moment may be about pirated music and videos, but I wonder whether industrial patents and designs may become a bone of contention in the future. I can't think it is safe for the West to watch its physical production processes migrate abroad, consoling itself with the thought of licensing the use of its inventions.
But China is not only acquiring the custom and capital (even the factories) of the West: she is also very keen to catch up on know-how. The arguments at the moment may be about pirated music and videos, but I wonder whether industrial patents and designs may become a bone of contention in the future. I can't think it is safe for the West to watch its physical production processes migrate abroad, consoling itself with the thought of licensing the use of its inventions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)