His analysis doesn't make it clear that Indian R&D has much to teach other nations. Take the fact that he was impressed by the # of hours of training each empl

His analysis doesn't make it clear that Indian R&D has much to teach other nations. Take the fact that he was impressed by the # of hours of training each employee received. Even if the number of hours of training per employee changed the quality of R&D, I'd want to know what the training consisted of. The large company I work at offers tons of training, but almost all of it is brain-dead. R&D should be judged by its results, not by the number of hours of training given to employees. With this in mind, one would might be more inclined to draw the lines by company instead of country. For example, an answer to 'What companies can learn from Apple's R&D' would be much more interesting. Basically, I think that the author was biased towards showing India in a positive light, and only looked at data in a way that supported his bias.