I think that the reason why public research doesn't seem to (directly) hit the bottom line of a given country is that the benefits of public research go to other countries as well ... Everybody (in whatever country) can do work with the results of public research.
Where public research benefits a country directly is that people who do their public research in a university in a given country are more likely to stay there to do more private research in that same country if there are private research spots available. That private research and development is what, ultimately, results in 'local jobs'. Thus, private and public research go hand in hand.
Public research (in universities) trains young scientists to do research that they can then transfer to local private companies, but the public companies then have to be available to suck up those same young scientist and put them to work making real products.
Where you have private companies that do both basic research and full-blown development (e.g. Bell Labs and Xerox Parc), you find that companies can produce a lot of good results out of internal research -- but the problem is that it's hard to find companies that have the kind of spare cash that it takes to fund large research parks on their own.
Cipher: part of the value of a REAL rolex is that it's expensive, and people KNOW that it's expensive.
Somebody that's able to afford a real Rolex isn't going to buy one, and is unlikely to be fooled by some of the counterfeit Rolexes that I've seen out there (not once they've tried a real one, anyways).
Somebody who can only afford to spend $50 on a watch isn't going to buy a real Rolex, so that's not any sweat off of the nose of the real manufacturer. .... As was pointed out in the article, though, many of the people (especially younger people) who buy a fake {brand} watch will aspire go get a real {brand} watch "when I get older". In that respect, having counterfeit gear out on the market really is free advertising for {brand}.
In other words, counterfeit goods result in sales that would otherwise not have existed ... while, at the same time, {brand} can disclaim any responsibility for those cheap knockoffs that sell in a market that they can't afford (brand wise) to pander to.... even though that market is a 'farm team' market for the real McCoy.
Yeah... that's right. Rolex (your example) actually gets to play both sides of the market. They get to disclaim the cheap knockoff Rolexes, On one hand, that actually BUILD a market for real Rolex watches at full price, while distancing themselves from the same farm team that they're taking advantage of.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some high-end brands are actually supporting some knockoff retailers on the sly because it ends up as free advertising.
Microsoft has been doing this for years -- turning a blind eye to counterfeit MS software in places where their full prices can't be afforded in order to prevent competitors from gaining a foothold ("Why should I pay $50/copy for Mikie's Office suite when I can bootleg a 'real' copy of MS office for free).
At the same time, they file lawsuits against larger companies to get them to buy 'site licenses' for more copies than they actually use so that they don't have to go through the bureaucratic hell of having to maintain proof of purchase for every piece of software on every machine that any employee has ever used.including reinstalls and replacements.
It's actually no skin off of Microsoft's backs because they don't actually pay anything out of pocket for the bootleg copies. On the other hand, they still get to maintain a monopoly on the market because everybody can presume that "everybody who matters has a copy of MS Xxx". This leaves people in that market feeling that they have to have a copy of MS Xxx, and so the cycle continues.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Stephen Samuel.
Public research spreads VERY widely
Where public research benefits a country directly is that people who do their public research in a university in a given country are more likely to stay there to do more private research in that same country if there are private research spots available. That private research and development is what, ultimately, results in 'local jobs'. Thus, private and public research go hand in hand.
Public research (in universities) trains young scientists to do research that they can then transfer to local private companies, but the public companies then have to be available to suck up those same young scientist and put them to work making real products.
Where you have private companies that do both basic research and full-blown development (e.g. Bell Labs and Xerox Parc), you find that companies can produce a lot of good results out of internal research -- but the problem is that it's hard to find companies that have the kind of spare cash that it takes to fund large research parks on their own.
So, then it's actually LESS than$5bn?
Somebody that's able to afford a real Rolex isn't going to buy one, and is unlikely to be fooled by some of the counterfeit Rolexes that I've seen out there (not once they've tried a real one, anyways).
Somebody who can only afford to spend $50 on a watch isn't going to buy a real Rolex, so that's not any sweat off of the nose of the real manufacturer. .... As was pointed out in the article, though, many of the people (especially younger people) who buy a fake {brand} watch will aspire go get a real {brand} watch "when I get older". In that respect, having counterfeit gear out on the market really is free advertising for {brand}.
In other words, counterfeit goods result in sales that would otherwise not have existed ... while, at the same time, {brand} can disclaim any responsibility for those cheap knockoffs that sell in a market that they can't afford (brand wise) to pander to.... even though that market is a 'farm team' market for the real McCoy.
Yeah... that's right. Rolex (your example) actually gets to play both sides of the market. They get to disclaim the cheap knockoff Rolexes, On one hand, that actually BUILD a market for real Rolex watches at full price, while distancing themselves from the same farm team that they're taking advantage of.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some high-end brands are actually supporting some knockoff retailers on the sly because it ends up as free advertising.
Microsoft has been doing this for years -- turning a blind eye to counterfeit MS software in places where their full prices can't be afforded in order to prevent competitors from gaining a foothold ("Why should I pay $50/copy for Mikie's Office suite when I can bootleg a 'real' copy of MS office for free).
At the same time, they file lawsuits against larger companies to get them to buy 'site licenses' for more copies than they actually use so that they don't have to go through the bureaucratic hell of having to maintain proof of purchase for every piece of software on every machine that any employee has ever used.including reinstalls and replacements.
It's actually no skin off of Microsoft's backs because they don't actually pay anything out of pocket for the bootleg copies. On the other hand, they still get to maintain a monopoly on the market because everybody can presume that "everybody who matters has a copy of MS Xxx". This leaves people in that market feeling that they have to have a copy of MS Xxx, and so the cycle continues.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Stephen Samuel.
Submit a story now.