So I TRIPped over a branch in a 'patent thicket' the other day... it HURT!

If protectionism for football players is what gets Mr. Dickovick started, for me it has certainly been patent, especially in regards to software - although as Stiglitz has shown, the same issues are relevant for almost any patent, not the least in medicine and other research.

I know, throwing stones at Microsoft for their less-than legal and more-than disgusting market policies has already gotten old, but they certainly deserve every single one. No everyone may realize that just having a shiny brand on it (Microsoft, Adobe etc.) does not automatically make the product better. As a proud user of open-source technologies - from text editors and Internet browsers to video, sound, graphics processing and on to the more obscure areas - I can assure you that the free alternatives are as good as, if not superior to their pricey counterparts. The biggest irony is that while "open source" can be claimed to stop innovation (in the same way as the argument against free-flow of knowledge in scientific research that Stiglitz mentions), it does just the opposite, making things easier to use, for free. To give you a few striking examples - Open Office can work with about twice as many formats as Microsoft Office, including easy conversion from .doc to .pdf. On the other hand the M. Office, if it did anything "innovative" at all, is it sacrificed pragmatism for form, and used an ingenious mechanism to ensure that the customers will HAVE to buy their new, and in many people's opinion inferior product (some pretty monopolistic behaviour there, too). Another fun one is that Microsoft got the idea for tabbed browsing for its new IE7 and 8 from Netscape or Opera, where it has existed for years - and had they patented it, they could've made a hefty sum. So much for "protected innovation".

I am also positive that the people who grew up in the 80s (and in some countries even 90s) would be sad if Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios were decided the other way. And I am sure, had the Supreme Court ruled the VHS recorder as infringing on copyright, the DVD players and recorders, iPods and many other 'no-brainer' everyday entertainment technologies would have been a lot more difficult to get hands on, if they ever were invented in the first place.

Of course, a VHS player is not as critical to the word development as malaria drugs, but perhaps such examples are necessary to get the people in the developed countries understand the problem. If you don't allow free flow of water, it stagnates; knowledge and information are much the same. And now, as I proudly close my Opera browser, I will let you think whether (and how) we need to pick up our verbal flamethrowers to take those nasty 'thickets' down.

P.S. When I saw that phrase in Stiglitz, I literally went "Aha!" in my head. Way to feed my blog more opportunities for obscure metaphors.

Hats off to President Lula of Brazil

While I do not necessarily approve of Lula's harsh approach to international politics (since it does destroy the possibility of a constructive dialogue from the get-go), but I do commend him for standing up for his country and his ideals. The global crisis did indeed give a reason for the developing countries to take the IMF and WB's directives for development with a grain of salt, openly. It is also an opportunity for the developing countries to take the initiative and make globalization work for them and not just the "rich", as President Lula refers to G8, since globalization "by developing countries for developing countries" may well be the best tactic. One can but hope that he finds more support around the globe, to perhaps help transform the international arena from "rule by elites" and into a more democratic relationship.

Courtesy of BBC World: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8253318.stm

Lack of Trust in the Global Jungle (Intro)

Working to understand and improve political economy has never been easy, and even now, with all the positive effects of globalization, there are a number of difficult hurdles to overcome – improving living standards in the developing countries, transcending the political barriers in favor of open markets (if that is the current goal for further development) – and many others that also depend on the perspective of the speaker. Defining the priorities is surely the key to successful globalization process, but who do you identify as the “leading actors” in the process? This is probably the more important question, because it affects the answers to all others. For example, if G8 are those “actors” then perhaps the challenge is to overcome the global financial crisis, and to establish the accepted free-market system in the developing part of the world. If, however, we take a different perspective and choose the developing countries as the defining element (be it the BRIC countries, or even the less-developed Africa), the challenges may be different, if not directly opposite, like to win back the freedom to decide how the economical and political system should work, or how to establish symmetric beneficial relationships with the bigger economic and political powers. All of these are, however, but examples of specific problems; a general question like this should have a more general answer. That answer would be the lack of trust between the players in the international relations.

Whether one takes a “pro-globalization” view that there is too little of it, or the “anti-globalization” view that it is poorly managed, the lack of trust and constant verbal skirmishes between different thinkers and governments. If anything, Stiglitz is the most correct out of them all, at least in that it is political mismanagement and not economic miscalculations that can and will cause problems. Poor decisions come from violent disagreements, and people tend to disagree when there is lack of trust – the developed countries patronizing the developing ones because the first don’t trust the second to make the right decisions, and create unstable, unfitting systems as a result (some African countries, CEE, Middle East all serve as great examples); EU facing its ‘fatigue’ period because it is crumbling under the weight of all the lengthy, incomprehensible laws and provisions that arise because the politicians cannot find a common ground; millions spent on military and security rather than used towards well-being and development of the people because governments do not trust each other, etc. One could write a book just listing all the examples, but these few are enough to show that promoting open dialogue and increasing transparency in the international relationships still stands as the biggest challenge, as well as a key to success of globalization or any other program. As the recent economic crisis has proven, the “rich” countries are not always right, and perhaps need to learn to listen to other opinions, not only preach their own doctrine for world development and prosperity. The problem is that most political actors like to avoid the topic, and much less do anything to solve the problem. I am sure the world could only get better when we start cutting down the political “jungle” of IR, and many will be surprised about how much we can improve.