Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jhaelin]

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=7757
This is a summary provided by Office of the United States Trade Representative and posted on http://www.bilaterals.org/
Interesting to note how most of the strategic targets were never about manufacturing nor agriculture.
Instead the key areas of US business interest were services (e.g. financial /health /pharmaceutical /media) and protection/enforcement of copyrights and patents.

Here are brief descriptions of some agreement points (list not complete due to space, see the link for complete list and details):
i've bolded what i humbly consider to be interesting or clear winners from the US business perspective.

-Increased Access for U.S. Autos
-Expanded Markets for U.S. Farmers and Ranchers
-Textiles and Apparel - Promoting Cooperation and Benefits
-Important New Protections for U.S. Investors
-Open Services Markets
-Improved Financial Services
-A more open broadcast market for U.S. audio-visual products
-An Open and Competitive Telecommunications Market
-E-Commerce - Free Trade in the Digital Age
-Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices: A Shared Commitment On Access to Innovative Medicines
-State-of-the-Art Protection for U.S. Trademarks
-Protection for Copyrighted Works in a Digital Economy
-Patents & Regulated products
-Tough Penalties for Piracy and Counterfeiting (my favorite!)
-Expanded Access to Government Procurement Contracts

Notably, non of these details would require any changes in US laws, while the same cannot be said for Korean laws, many of which will have to be changed to accomodate this FTA.


We'll have to wait and see what the Korean summary shows. But tentatively, the winners would seem to be primarily the large conglomerates in automotive and electronics industries, i.e. samsung, hyundai, lg, kia.
the losers are ... everyone else?

[Troll_Bait]

I wasn't sure which FTA thread to put this in.
Anyway, from the International Herald Tribune ...

U.S. and South Korea sign free-trade agreement

Page Two

[that guy]

Here's the full summary of the US/Korea FTA according to the US trade reps.

pdf file - same as a link posted above but the source

This caught my eye.

[Pligganease]

[Kuros]

Enforcement of IPR issues helps innovation in a country. The few bucks made off of copying products does not compare with the loss of innovation that is incurred. In an economy where generic drugs are made, the massive research costs to produce top of the line drugs become unworth investing in.

[stevemcgarrett]

jhaelin:

Yep. It's sad that we have to negotiate to get what international laws already prescribe: intellectual copyright protection. East Asian governments have no shame in this regard.

I still think it's a raw deal but perhaps it will pan out to better than no deal at all. Time will tell. East Asian governments like to take their sweet time to implement promises.

And, of course, it might all be moot if either legislature passes.

Could be we'll just end up with another Coke and a smile.

[jhaelin]

the whole idea of intellectual property is something very dubious to me.
the idea, that somehow an individual or corporate entitiy can claim ownership over something abstract.
patents on genes,
drug design,
software,
art,
music... etc.

sure the pharma-industry claim RD costs as weight to justify lengthy and overbearing claims on patents. but taking the US biopharmaceutical RD as an example, this justification seems weak in light of the fact that the majority of research funding (over 50%) is provided by public/tax sources (e.g. NIH, NSF) -through academic-industry partnerships, where the industry and researchers (and not the taxpayer) claims ownership of patents.
thus in this way, the taxpayer is shafted in two ways, first by funding private ownership over research findings, then being made to pay high prices for products resulting from the very same funded research. does this seem at all fair?

you can take the "media-hyped" view that china/east asia -these third world countries- are somehow screwing the US industry and throwing industry workers on the streets. but just looking at the salary spread of industry workers in the entertainment and media puts that claim into doubt. the very same people in hollywood and the recording industry were screaming hell when vcr/beta tapes came out, as well as with cassette tapes.
in fact, these things (i.e. vcr, cassetes tapes) which allowed infringement of intellectual property coercion, were what forced industry to innovate.
so its not protection of intellectual property that creates innovation. it's the opposite!
it's when joe hacker, schmo, finds a way to cheat big business that big business has to find new innovations to prevent that.
do you think there would ever be another innovation in technology if a company can claim patent rights on something indefinitely!
please consider this carefully, it's critical at this time, especially as the freedom we have with the internet and information exchange may soon disappear under the guise of protecting intellectual property!
the double-speak protrayal by the media and industry PR folks that have made the majoriy of consumers actually side with the corporations on this issue is a sad indication of our losing battle to big business.

thus my view is not to say, koreans should be able to cheat american companies of their hard earned intellectual property...

my point is intellectual property should be public property, especially if we paid for it! and to allow fta's, wta's, etc to enforce these dubious claims of ownership only perpetuates the status quo, where people die from diseases that we have cures for, because we won't allow big business to lose profit!

[Pligganease]

There has to be incentive in order for the best minds in the world to innovate. If you remove the ability to make money, which is the most common incentive, then you will surely stifle global innovation.

Just because some innovation is present without monetary incentive does not mean that all innovation would be present without monetary incentive.

Do you think that Led Zeppelin would have continued to make music had they not been able to make money from it?

If everything were "shareware," the only innovation and new product design you would see would be hobby work form less talented minds.

[jhaelin]

[cbclark4]

[igotthisguitar]

A little insight ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=opium+wars+open+door+policy+

OPIUM WARS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

OPEN DOOR POLICY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy

[Kuros]