- Related Stories
-
The tech industry's newest power player
July 13, 2006 -
Electric slide for tech industry?
February 1, 2006 -
Gates, Jobs top leadership list
December 14, 2005 -
On the Net, trick or...trick
November 2, 2005 -
Commentary: Putting telematics in drive
November 26, 2003
The United States grabbed the top spot, followed by Japan, South Korea, England and Australia, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit of The Economist Group, publisher of the eponymous magazine.
The countries were scored on a scale of 1 to 100 for factors such as a country's business environment, IT infrastructure, and efforts in research and development.
Denis McCauley, EIU director of global technology research, said there is a strong link between the presence of these so-called "competitiveness enablers" in countries and the strength of their IT sector.
All but 4 out of the top 22 countries in the competitiveness index are also among the world's top countries in terms of IT labor productivity.
"Governments and industry leaders must pay close attention to these enablers if they wish to boost the global competitiveness of their IT industries," McCauley added.
Countries must also balance open competition in IT and protection for intellectual-property rights, according to the report, titled The Means to Compete: Benchmarking IT Industry Competitiveness (PDF).
"All in all, there remains a large gap between the gold standard of countries with the most effective legal regimes, such as the U.S. and U.K., and the approach of many emerging economies," the EUI report said.
Gemma Simpson of Silicon.com reported from London.
- More from News.com on this story's topics
Workplace
IT Management
Geographic regions
See more CNET content tagged:
competitiveness,
information technology,
economist,
factor,
R&D
Unlimited long distance $24.99/mo
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.
Notebook PCs, iPods, GameSystems, and Cellphones
>>>>>
FREE EBay Success Kit!