If the government is serious about supporting the service economy, rather than trying to figure out ways to protect U.S. intellectual property, I would suggest we turn it around and figure out ways to undermine other countries' intellectual property. Obviously from a trade perspective it is important not just to hand over power to others, so we can't decide to unilaterally make the change only in the United States.
Sitting on copyrights and patents and waiting for money to roll in is not going to keep a large information workforce busy. In the case of technologies like pharmaceuticals, it is not in the public interest to allow prices that burden the taxpayer through Medicare or send families into bankruptcy. And software as a service is a better pricing approach than software as a product. I think a goal should be to improve the ability for individuals to find sustainable but unique and interesting work and to create many different kinds of robust market where every player feels like they have skin in the game. This is in contrast to what most corporations pursue: Hugely profitable work product that can be milked for decades. That doesn't encourage innovation, that encourages exploitation and stagnation. Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 9:56 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: [FRIAM] TPP pro and con https://ustr.gov/tpp/ https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp In the midst of a wide-ranging discussion with my intensely Christian neighbor who expects to vote for Trump, he explained his experiences as a missionary in some of the NAFTA countries where he claims to have seen the bad effect of the agreement on the poor. I did my ignorant best to talk about the TPP as an improvement over deals like NAFTA, despite my being programmed by my clique to dislike the deals. I somewhat buy the argument that the TPP gives us leverage in our competition with China. And I also buy the arguments that the deal falls way short of democratic ideals (in both the way it was developed and the policies it would put in place). But I'm bouncing between 2 (or more) bodies of rhetoric and I'd like to know what y'all think, even if, pragmatically, it's doomed because Congress won't ratify it. -- ☢ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
