4 ms·

Not Indian, Israeli. Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents. Historical point: Up unti

by petra 10y ago

Not Indian, Israeli. Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents. Historical point: Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment(for example in the past you couldn't open a foreign subsidiary in India, Now there's even Amazon in India). As for capitalistic tactics etc, that's definetly true. Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Not Indian, Israeli." Cool. Always like to see you all in security or legal discussions as you have interesting perspectives. :) "Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents." I didn't realize they did that. I love that as I want serious changes to pharma patents here. It's basically legalized murder and unacceptable given what U.S. top causes of death are. So, I guess they did resist in some key ways. :) "Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment" Even the U.S. was isolationist for a while. It usually fails as both capitalists and consumers want the benefits of international trade. That opens them up to concessions. From there, we look at how they fair in ratio of benefit to their country vs to foreign countries. Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped. "Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced." I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, etc to build key techs. Most of the groundbreaking stuff was American with VC or defense funding. Lots of improvements and experimental stuff (eg small players) involved foreigners. Big companies like IBM have their R&D in Israel, China, whatever brain-draining the crap out of them. So, it seems like a mix to me. I guess what I'm getting at is that American innovators often got things started, becomes stagnant a bit, and then they start boosting it with foreign innovators. Other times, it's foreign innovators straight up making a contribution either here or over there. That gets monetized somehow by big players either through feature parity or acquisition.
- petra 10y ago
  Same, always a pleasure to to discuss stuff with you, you usually bring a lot of depth. >> I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, ... Leaving aside the entrepreneur(and the excessive hero worship around them), it's clear that startup companies highly depend on high quality employees. And the stats: Asian tech workers in Santa Clara are 50%[1]. Other stats: around 20% of US scientists and engineering are Foreign born. International students earn more than half of advanced STEM degrees in the U.S(and are probably behind half the university research). And what about second generation foreigners ? And what about startups ? most of the successful startups in my country, which is known for startup quality, are bought before they can grow into to full form employing thousands. And let's not forget - the effects are not linear - it's about ecosystems and power laws, things building on top of each other. >> Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped. Usually such growth path was through manufacturing, but there's some data from india hinting that china and manufacturing don't offer that path anymore, which is pretty worrying.

by petra 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Not Indian, Israeli." Cool. Always like to see you all in security or legal discussions as you have interesting perspectives. :) "Patent differences i'm talking about: The justified way India doesn't follow the western law on pharma patents." I didn't realize they did that. I love that as I want serious changes to pharma patents here. It's basically legalized murder and unacceptable given what U.S. top causes of death are. So, I guess they did resist in some key ways. :) "Up until relatively recently,India did have a closed economy, but did a lot to open their economy to foreign trade and investment" Even the U.S. was isolationist for a while. It usually fails as both capitalists and consumers want the benefits of international trade. That opens them up to concessions. From there, we look at how they fair in ratio of benefit to their country vs to foreign countries. Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped. "Just look at how much of the important contributions to silicon valley came from Indian people, both brain-drained and outsourced." I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, etc to build key techs. Most of the groundbreaking stuff was American with VC or defense funding. Lots of improvements and experimental stuff (eg small players) involved foreigners. Big companies like IBM have their R&D in Israel, China, whatever brain-draining the crap out of them. So, it seems like a mix to me. I guess what I'm getting at is that American innovators often got things started, becomes stagnant a bit, and then they start boosting it with foreign innovators. Other times, it's foreign innovators straight up making a contribution either here or over there. That gets monetized somehow by big players either through feature parity or acquisition.

petra 10y ago
Same, always a pleasure to to discuss stuff with you, you usually bring a lot of depth. >> I actually don't know how many did outside smart people being hired at Google, ... Leaving aside the entrepreneur(and the excessive hero worship around them), it's clear that startup companies highly depend on high quality employees. And the stats: Asian tech workers in Santa Clara are 50%[1]. Other stats: around 20% of US scientists and engineering are Foreign born. International students earn more than half of advanced STEM degrees in the U.S(and are probably behind half the university research). And what about second generation foreigners ? And what about startups ? most of the successful startups in my country, which is known for startup quality, are bought before they can grow into to full form employing thousands. And let's not forget - the effects are not linear - it's about ecosystems and power laws, things building on top of each other. >> Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China seem to be examples of winners that ensure trade is very positive for them vs major countries. India seems to be one of the losers but has potential that's untapped. Usually such growth path was through manufacturing, but there's some data from india hinting that china and manufacturing don't offer that path anymore, which is pretty worrying.