Comments on: Index ranks IT industries by nation
More than 60 countries were scored on factors ranging from business environment and R&D efforts. How did the U.S. fare?![]()
More than 60 countries were scored on factors ranging from business environment and R&D efforts. How did the U.S. fare?![]()
January 5, 2010 6:49 AM PST
January 5, 2010 6:35 AM PST
January 5, 2010 6:33 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Here are the specifics:
The study rates countries on six categories. The score each country garners in each category is weighted.
So for instance one of the categories is Overall business environment and it is worth 10%. Another category, infrastrucutre is worth 20%. Etc etc through all six categories, with a cumulative of 100%.
Within each category, there are subcategories. Each subcategory contributes some percent to it's category.
Here is the problem: the weighting they gave to IP laws is nothing more than an expression of the Economist's pre-existing attitude towards IP law.
No correlation between strong IP laws and a strong IT sector is demonstrated by this study. Instead, it is merely presumed to exist and therefore given a huge weight- fully 20%.
This is called assuming the consequent.
No serious student or professional is going to accept this as proof of anything other than the Economist "really believes" that IP law is important to the IT sector, which fact most people were already aware of.
Here is the details of how they incorporated a strong weighting in favor of IP laws. Remember that this doesn't demonstrate the importance of IP to IT, it PRESUMES it.
From Category 1, (worth 10% of overall score):
Overall business environment
subcategory:
Degree to which private property rights are guaranteed and protected
weight given:
40% (of 10%)
RUNNING TOTAL:
4% given to IP
Category 4 (worth 10% of overall score):
Legal environment
subcategory 1:
Comprehensiveness, transparency of IP legislation; adherence to treaties
weight given: 35% (of 10%)
RUNNING TOTAL 4% + 3.5% = 7.5% given to IP
subcategory 2:
Enforcement of IP legislation
weight given: 35% (of 10%)
RUNNING TOTAL 4%+3.5% +3.5% = 11% given to IP
Category 5 (worth 25%):
R&D environment
subcategory 1:
Number of new domestic patents registered by residents each year (per 100 people)
weight given :
65% (of 25%)
RUNNING TOTAL 4%+3.5% +3.5% + 16.25% = 27.25% given to IP
subcategory 2:
Receipts from royalty and license fees (US$) per 100 people
weight given:
15% (of 25%)
RUNNING TOTAL 4%+3.5% +3.5% + 16.25% + 3.75%= 31.00%
So at least 31% of this "study's" PRESUMES that IP is an IT enabler and promoter.
Now that they've "proved" that, broader assertions are made. This from the report:
"The legal regime is an important differentiator.
Open competition in IT must be supported by robust
protection for intellectual property rights (IPR). The US and west European countries?thanks partly to the galvanising efforts of the European Union?stand heads above the rest in the degree of protection afforded and in enforcement. A vigorous IPR regime is not incompatible with an ?open approach? to
innovation in IT. "
So in other words, Open Source is incompatible with a robust IT sector. This is nothing more than their pre-existing belief dressed up as proven fact.
But don't doubt that this "study" will be quoted around the world in legislative bodies in the UK EU and US as "proof" that strong UP is "necessary" and OS is, at best, to be tolerated.
This is exactly the kind of bought-and-paid-for "study" puked out by "think tanks" with a ideological and or financial or political motive whose only purpose is to steer public discourse and thinking in the direction which serves their interests as opposed to what science and studies SHOULD be - an impartial inquiry into reality in a search for something called the truth.
This report doesn't need "truth".. it has "truthiness" galore.. it's a sorry simulation of the scientific process and it's authors, participants and funders have done nothing but bring shame and discredit to themselves, their reputations and their organization.
As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Unfortunately, nothing much has changed since his time.
Your statement above directly contradicts the study?s statement as quoted by you.
>> But don't doubt that this "study" will be quoted around the world in legislative bodies in the UK EU and US as "proof" that strong UP is "necessary" and OS is, at best, to be tolerated. <<
Again, the quote from the study contradicts your above statement. There is no basis in fact for your conclusions.
It is obvious that you are an open source supporter, but it is equally obvious that your position on open source is a minority position confined to open source extremists. You apparently don?t like the idea of intellectual property rights because you identify those rights with proprietary software. There is in fact no contradiction between IPR and open source. Open source and proprietary software exist side by side. Both incorporate some degree of intellectual proprietary rights in that even open source relies on licensing to a degree.
Being an open source supporter is fine. Being an open source fanatic is something else. The latter only makes you look foolish.
This is completely unacceptable as a news story.
The report embeds a prejudice for very strong IP laws; if your country doesn't have those, then it gets very heavily penalized.
Read my first post for an analysis then the criticism of my post, then my rebuttal.
- Claim FREE Electronics!
- by t0wood July 14, 2007 10:31 AM PDT
- FREE Electronics Giveaway!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)Notebook PCs, iPods, GameSystems, and Cellphones
>>>>>
FREE EBay Success Kit!