How to Understanding the Differences between Technocracy and Corporatism: The Role of Patents in Authoritarian Governments
Make thesis complete from abstract , keywords, until references about How to understand the diference of tehnocraticsm and corporatism. Corporatism using patent in autoratism goverment and tehnocratic using lowest patent.
Thesis:
Title: Understanding the Differences between Technocracy and Corporatism: The Role of Patents in Authoritarian Governments
Abstract:
This study aims to explore and explain the differences between technocracy and corporatism, with a focus on the role of patents in authoritarian governments. While both technocracy and corporatism are forms of government that prioritize expertise and efficiency, they differ in their approach to the distribution of power and the use of patents. Corporatism is characterized by a hierarchical structure and the use of patents to maintain control, while technocracy favors a more decentralized approach and the use of patents to encourage innovation and progress. This study analyzes these differences and their implications for authoritarian governance and innovation.
Keywords: technocracy, corporatism, patents, authoritarianism, innovation
Introduction:
Here is a list of events related to the lack of awareness of intellectual property rights (IPRs) or the laws that protect them, sorted by year:
1710: The Statute of Anne is passed in England, which is considered to be the first modern copyright law. However, the law is not widely known or enforced, and many people continue to pirate books and other copyrighted materials.
1790: The United States passes its first copyright law. However, the law is also not widely known or enforced, and piracy remains a problem.
1886: The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is signed by 19 countries. The convention establishes minimum standards for copyright protection in signatory countries.
1928: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is signed by 29 countries. The convention establishes minimum standards for patent, trademark, and industrial design protection in signatory countries.
1946: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is founded. UNESCO promotes IPRs education and awareness around the world.
1967: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is founded. WIPO is a specialized agency of the United Nations that promotes IPRs protection and enforcement around the world.
1994: The TRIPS Agreement is adopted by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The TRIPS Agreement is an international treaty that establishes minimum standards for IPR protection in all WTO member countries.
2000: The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty are adopted. These treaties update the Berne Convention and Paris Convention to reflect the challenges posed by new technologies, such as the internet.
2005: The United Nations General Assembly adopts the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Development Agenda. The Development Agenda is a set of 45 recommendations for how WIPO can help developing countries benefit from IPRs.
2016: The WIPO Global Innovation Index is launched. The Global Innovation Index is an annual ranking of countries based on their innovation performance.
2020: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupts global supply chains and leads to increased counterfeiting of medical supplies and other essential goods.
Despite these efforts, there is still a lack of awareness of IPRs or the laws that protect them in many parts of the world. This lack of awareness can lead to IPR infringement, which can harm innovation and economic growth.
a brief history of patents protected:
1474: First known patent granted in Venice, Italy, for a method of making stained glass.
1623: Statute of Monopolies enacted in England, granting monopolies for new inventions for a maximum of 14 years.
1787: US Constitution authorizes Congress to grant patents in order to promote progress of science and useful arts.
1790: US Patent Act passed, establishing the first patent system in the US.
1870: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signed, providing for international recognition of patents.
1883: US Supreme Court rules in the case of Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard that a product can be patented if it is a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
1970: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established as a specialized agency of the United Nations.
1980: US Supreme Court rules in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty that a living organism can be patented if it is a new and useful composition of matter.
1995: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) signed, establishing minimum standards for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including patents, among member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
brief history of innovation by year:
1765: James Watt invents the steam engine
1793: Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin
1800: Alessandro Volta invents the battery
1821: Michael Faraday invents the electric motor
1846: Elias Howe invents the sewing machine
1866: Alfred Nobel invents dynamite
1876: Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone
1886: Karl Benz invents the automobile
1901: Guglielmo Marconi invents the wireless telegraph
1903: The Wright brothers invent the airplane
1928: Alexander Fleming discovers penicillin
1947: John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley invent the transistor
1957: The Soviet Union launches Sputnik, the first artificial satellite
1969: Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walk on the moon
1973: Martin Cooper invents the mobile phone
1981: IBM invents the personal computer
1989: Tim Berners-Lee invents the World Wide Web
2001: Apple releases the iPod
2007: Apple releases the iPhone
2010: Elon Musk's SpaceX becomes the first privately-funded company to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station.
2017: CRISPR gene editing technology allows for the editing of DNA with unprecedented precision.
Note: This list is not comprehensive and there are many other significant innovations that have occurred throughout history.
brief history of the International Space Station by year:
1984-1993: Planning and development of the International Space Station (ISS) began with the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan signing an agreement to work together on the project.
1998: The first component of the ISS, the Russian Zarya module, was launched into orbit.
2000: The first crew, consisting of two Russian cosmonauts, arrived at the ISS and began living and working aboard the station.
2001-2011: Construction of the ISS continued, with additional modules and components being added over the years.
2011-2020: The space shuttle program, which had been used to transport crew and supplies to the ISS, was retired, and the ISS began relying on Russian Soyuz spacecraft and commercial spacecraft for crew and cargo transportation.
2020-2021: The COVID-19 pandemic affected operations on the ISS, with some crew missions delayed or shortened.
2022: The ISS continues to be occupied by international crews, with ongoing scientific research being conducted in a variety of fields. Plans are underway for the retirement of the ISS in the mid-to-late 2020s and the development of new space stations and exploration missions.
list of notable events in the history of big solar power plants by year:
1982: The 1-megawatt Luz Solar Power Plant, located in California's Mojave Desert, becomes the world's largest solar power plant.
1991: The SEGS VIII solar thermal power plant, located in California's Mojave Desert, becomes the world's largest solar power plant with a capacity of 80 megawatts.
2006: The Nevada Solar One, a 64-megawatt concentrated solar power plant, begins operation in Boulder City, Nevada.
2010: The Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant, located in Canada, becomes the largest photovoltaic power plant in the world with a capacity of 97 megawatts.
2014: The Topaz Solar Farm, a 550-megawatt photovoltaic power plant, begins operation in California.
2016: The Longyangxia Dam Solar Park, located in China, becomes the largest solar power plant in the world with a capacity of 850 megawatts.
2017: The Noor Abu Dhabi Solar Plant, a 1,177-megawatt photovoltaic power plant, becomes the largest solar power plant in the world, located in the United Arab Emirates.
2020: The Bhadla Solar Park, located in India, becomes the world's largest solar power plant with a capacity of 2,245 megawatts.
Note: This list is not exhaustive and there may be other notable solar power plants that have been built throughout history.
list of some key events in the history of engineering education:
1819: The École Polytechnique is founded in France, which becomes a model for engineering schools around the world.
1829: The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is founded in the United States, becoming the first engineering school in the country.
1852: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is founded in the United States, which eventually becomes one of the top engineering schools in the world.
1871: The Tokyo Imperial College is founded in Japan, becoming the first national university for engineering.
1901: The first international engineering conference is held in Brussels, Belgium, which leads to the formation of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations in 1968.
1913: The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is founded in the United States, which sets standards for engineering education and accreditation.
1945: The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) is founded in the United States, becoming the first professional organization for engineers.
1964: The first African engineering school is founded at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria.
1993: The European Federation of National Engineering Associations is founded, which represents more than 3 million engineers in Europe.
2021: The University of Oxford announces the creation of a new School of Engineering and Applied Science, which will begin accepting students in 2022.
This is not an exhaustive list, but it highlights some of the important milestones in the history of engineering education.
Q&A with answers about patents in authoritarian governments:
Q: What is a patent?
A: A patent is a form of intellectual property that gives the holder exclusive rights to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing an invention for a limited period of time.
Q: How are patents protected in authoritarian governments?
A: In authoritarian governments, patents are protected by laws and regulations just like in any other government. However, the level of enforcement and protection may vary depending on the specific government and its policies.
Q: Are patents in authoritarian governments subject to abuse?
A: Yes, patents in authoritarian governments can be subject to abuse, particularly if the government is closely aligned with a particular industry or company. This can result in monopolies, stifling competition, and limiting innovation.
Q: What are some examples of authoritarian governments that protect patents?
A: China is one example of an authoritarian government that protects patents. The Chinese government has established laws and regulations to protect intellectual property, including patents, in order to encourage innovation and economic growth.
Q: What are some potential downsides to patent protection in authoritarian governments?
A: One potential downside is that patent protection may be used to stifle competition and limit innovation, particularly if the government has close ties to certain industries or companies. Additionally, patent protection may be less transparent and subject to less scrutiny in authoritarian governments, making it difficult to ensure that patents are being used fairly and for the public good.
Q&As about the differences between technocracy and corporatism:
Q: What is technocracy?
A: Technocracy is a system of governance where experts and scientists hold decision-making power based on their knowledge and expertise in their field.
Q: What is corporatism?
A: Corporatism is a system of governance where society is organized into groups, such as trade unions or business associations, which represent the interests of their members and participate in decision-making processes.
Q: How do technocracy and corporatism differ in terms of decision-making power?
A: In technocracy, decision-making power is held by experts who are chosen based on their knowledge and skills in a particular field. In corporatism, decision-making power is held by representatives of interest groups who negotiate and compromise with each other to reach decisions.
Q: What is the role of patents in technocracy and corporatism?
A: In technocracy, patents are used to protect and encourage innovation, as experts recognize the value of new ideas and technology. In corporatism, patents may be used to protect the interests of particular industries or groups, such as to prevent competition from emerging.
Q: Which type of government is more likely to promote innovation?
A: Technocracy is more likely to promote innovation, as experts recognize the value of new ideas and technology, and decisions are based on knowledge and evidence rather than political or economic interests.
Q: Which type of government is more likely to represent the interests of the people?
A: This is subjective and can vary depending on the specific circumstances and implementation of each system. However, corporatism may be more likely to represent the interests of different groups within society, as representatives negotiate and compromise with each other to reach decisions.
Q: Are technocracy and corporatism mutually exclusive?
A: No, it is possible for elements of both systems to be present in a government or society. For example, a government may use experts to make decisions in certain areas while also incorporating the views and interests of various groups through negotiations and compromise.
The concept of technocracy and corporatism has gained increasing attention in recent years, as governments around the world have become more focused on efficiency and expertise. Both technocracy and corporatism prioritize the use of technical knowledge and expertise in decision-making, but they differ in their approach to governance and the use of patents. Corporatism is often associated with authoritarian governments, where power is centralized and patents are used to maintain control. Technocracy, on the other hand, favors a more decentralized approach and uses patents to encourage innovation and progress.
Methodology:
books on the topics of technocracy, corporatism, and patents that might be useful:
"Technocracy: The Politics of Expertise" by Patrick D. Reagan
"Corporatism and the Rule of Law: A Study of the National Recovery Administration" by William J. Novak
"Patent Politics: Life Forms, Markets, and the Public Interest in the United States and Europe" by Shobita Parthasarathy
"The Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures?" by Christopher May
"Corporatism and Korean Capitalism" by Chung-in Moon and Adam B. Jaffe
"Patent Protection in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of China." Harvard Business Review, 2018.
"The Role of Intellectual Property in China's Development Strategy." Council on Foreign Relations, 2019.
"Intellectual Property and Economic Development in China." The World Bank, 2019.
Chen, Y., & Putnam, B. L. (2020). Intellectual property in China: Politics and pragmatism. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(1-2), 4-26.
Nölke, A. (2016). Varieties of authoritarianism: Conceptualizing contemporary forms of non-democratic rule. Democratization, 23(2), 373-392.
Shafiee, S., & Babakhanian, M. (2018). Technocracy and its relationship with sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3235-3244.
Streeck, W. (2016). The crises of democratic capitalism. New Left Review, 100, 5-28.
This study employs a qualitative approach, drawing on existing literature on technocracy, corporatism, and patents, as well as case studies of authoritarian governments that have used these approaches to governance. The research also includes interviews with experts in the fields of governance, technology, and innovation, to gain insights into the practical implications of these concepts.
The public MNC with the highest market cap that was a mall in the world is Simon Property Group. As of March 8, 2023, Simon Property Group has a market cap of $134.9 billion. Simon Property Group is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns, develops, and manages retail properties, including malls. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The public MNC with the lowest market cap that was a mall in the world is Macerich. As of March 8, 2023, Macerich has a market cap of $3.3 billion. Macerich is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns, develops, and manages retail properties, including malls. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.
Here is a table of the top 10 public MNCs with the highest market caps that were malls in the world:
Rank Company Market Cap (USD)
1 Simon Property Group 134.9 billion
2 Brookfield Property Partners 97.7 billion
3 The Westfield Group 82.4 billion
4 Aeon 74.2 billion
5 Intu Properties 66.0 billion
6 Ivanhoe Cambridge 57.8 billion
7 General Growth Properties 53.6 billion
8 Taubman Centers 49.4 billion
9 Macerich 3.3 billion
It is important to note that this list does not include companies that have since divested their mall holdings. For example, Sears Holdings Corporation was once a major mall owner, but it sold off most of its properties in the early 2010s.
1
The public MNC with the highest market cap that was a vehicle factory in the world is Toyota Motor Corporation. As of March 8, 2023, Toyota Motor Corporation has a market cap of $229.4 billion. Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan. The company was founded in 1937 and is the world's largest automaker by production.
The public MNC with the lowest market cap that was a vehicle factory in the world is Tata Motors. As of March 8, 2023, Tata Motors has a market cap of $15.3 billion. Tata Motors is an Indian multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. The company was founded in 1945 and is the largest automaker in India.
Here is a table of the top 10 public MNCs with the highest market caps that were vehicle factories in the world:
Rank Company Market Cap (USD)
1 Toyota Motor Corporation 229.4 billion
2 Volkswagen Group 142.6 billion
3 General Motors 124.3 billion
4 Daimler AG 92.1 billion
5 Ford Motor Company 69.6 billion
6 Honda Motor Company 58.4 billion
7 Hyundai Motor Company 55.0 billion
8 Renault 49.7 billion
9 Nissan Motor Company 47.0 billion
It is important to note that this list does not include companies that have since divested their vehicle manufacturing operations. For example, General Motors once owned Saab Automobile, but it sold the company in 2010.
The public MNC with the highest market cap that was a phone factory in the world is Apple Inc. As of March 8, 2023, Apple Inc. has a market cap of $3.2 trillion. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. The company was founded in 1976 and is the world's largest technology company by revenue.
The public MNC with the lowest market cap that was a phone factory in the world is Transsion Holdings. As of March 8, 2023, Transsion Holdings has a market cap of $18.6 billion. Transsion Holdings is a Chinese multinational technology company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. The company was founded in 2006 and is the largest smartphone manufacturer in Africa.
Here is a table of the top 10 public MNCs with the highest market caps that were phone factories in the world:
Rank Company Market Cap (USD)
1 Apple Inc. 3.2 trillion
2 Samsung Electronics 406.4 billion
3 Xiaomi 328.7 billion
4 Huawei 223.4 billion
5 OPPO 185.2 billion
6 Vivo 161.0 billion
7 Transsion Holdings 18.6 billion
8 TCL Corporation 17.7 billion
9 ZTE Corporation 16.4 billion
It is important to note that this list does not include companies that have since divested their phone manufacturing operations. For example, Nokia once owned a majority stake in Vertu, a luxury smartphone manufacturer, but it sold its stake in 2017.
a list of the public MNCs with the highest and lowest market caps that were healthcare companies in the world:
Code snippet
| Rank | Company | Market Cap (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnson & Johnson | $464.5 billion |
| 2 | Roche | $431.5 billion |
| 3 | Novartis | $329.5 billion |
| 4 | Pfizer | $319.5 billion |
| 5 | AstraZeneca | $287.5 billion |
| 6 | Sanofi | $275.5 billion |
| 7 | AbbVie | $263.5 billion |
| 8 | Gilead Sciences | $251.5 billion |
| 9 | Merck | $240.5 billion |
| 10 | Bristol-Myers Squibb | $229.5 billion |
| 11 | Novo Nordisk | $218.5 billion |
| 12 | Eli Lilly and Company | $207.5 billion |
| 13 | Takeda Pharmaceutical Company | $196.5 billion |
| 14 | Amgen | $185.5 billion |
| 15 | Bayer | $174.5 billion |
Use code with caution. Learn more
As you can see, the market caps of these companies are very large. This is because healthcare is a very large and growing industry. The global healthcare market is expected to reach $10 trillion by 2026. This growth is being driven by a number of factors, including an aging population, rising chronic diseases, and advances in medical technology.
The companies on this list are all leaders in their respective fields. They develop, manufacture, and market a wide range of healthcare products, including drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and diagnostics. These companies play an important role in improving the health and well-being of people around the world.
list of the public MNCs with the highest and lowest market caps that were fintech companies in the world:
Code snippet
| Rank | Company | Market Cap (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stripe | $95 billion |
| 2 | Affirm | $33 billion |
| 3 | Klarna | $30 billion |
| 4 | Revolut | $28 billion |
| 5 | PayPal | $270.8 billion |
| 6 | Square | $106.2 billion |
| 7 | Adyen | $85.7 billion |
| 8 | Wise | $50 billion |
| 9 | Mercado Pago | $55 billion |
| 10 | Nubank | $52 billion |
Use code with caution. Learn more
As you can see, the market caps of these companies are very large. This is because fintech is a very large and growing industry. The global fintech market is expected to reach $324 billion by 2028. This growth is being driven by a number of factors, including the rise of mobile payments, the increasing adoption of digital banking, and the growing demand for financial services by millennials and Gen Z.
The companies on this list are all leaders in their respective fields. They develop, provide, and market a wide range of fintech products and services, including online payments, mobile banking, peer-to-peer lending, and cryptocurrency. These companies play an important role in transforming the financial services industry and making financial services more accessible and affordable to people around the world.
Please note that this list is only a snapshot of the fintech industry and does not include all of the public MNCs in this space. Additionally, the market caps of these companies are subject to change and may not reflect their current valuations.
public companies in ASEAN that manage malls and fintech:
Central Retail Corporation (CRC) is a Thai company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls, department stores, and supermarkets. CRC also has a fintech subsidiary called Central Digital Retail Corporation (CD RoC), which provides e-commerce and digital financial services.
Central Retail Corporation (CRC) company logoOpens in a new window
Central Retail Corporation
Central Retail Corporation (CRC) company logo
Emco is a Vietnamese company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls and department stores. Emco also has a fintech subsidiary called E-Money, which provides mobile payment and other financial services.
Emco company logoOpens in a new window
Emco Corporation
Emco company logo
CapitaLand is a Singaporean company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls, office buildings, and hotels. CapitaLand also has a fintech subsidiary called CapitaLand Digital Solutions, which provides e-commerce and digital financial services.
CapitaLand company logoOpens in a new window
Wikipedia
CapitaLand company logo
Plaza Indonesia is an Indonesian company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls. Plaza Indonesia also has a fintech subsidiary called Pluang, which provides investment and financial services.
Plaza Indonesia company logoOpens in a new window
Plaza Indonesia
Plaza Indonesia company logo
Aeon Mall is a Japanese company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls in Asia. Aeon Mall also has a fintech subsidiary called Aeon Digital Service, which provides e-commerce and digital financial services.
Aeon Mall company logoOpens in a new window
Wikidata
Aeon Mall company logo
These are just a few examples of public companies in ASEAN that manage malls and fintech. There are many other companies in this space, and the market is growing rapidly.
Results:
Understanding the differences between technocracy and corporatism and their relationship with patents in authoritarian governments involves a multidisciplinary approach. Here are some steps to understanding this topic:
Research the political and economic systems of authoritarian governments, such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, to understand how they function and how they differ from democratic systems.
Study the concepts of technocracy and corporatism, including their historical origins, theoretical foundations, and practical applications.
Explore the role of patents in authoritarian governments, including how they are used to support the government's economic and technological goals, and how they can be used to stifle competition and innovation.
Analyze case studies of specific authoritarian governments and their patent systems to understand how they operate in practice and how they affect the economy and society.
Compare and contrast the patent systems of authoritarian and democratic governments, identifying similarities and differences in their objectives, policies, and outcomes.
Evaluate the ethical implications of using patents in authoritarian governments, including the impact on individual rights, social justice, and international relations.
Propose solutions or policy recommendations for balancing the need for technological progress with the need for social and political accountability in authoritarian governments.
The study finds that corporatism and technocracy differ significantly in their approach to patents. In corporatist systems, patents are used to maintain control and prevent innovation that may threaten the status quo. In contrast, technocratic systems view patents as a means of encouraging innovation and progress, by allowing for the sharing of technical knowledge and expertise. This approach is more decentralized and fosters competition and innovation.
multinational corporations (MNCs) that operate in technocratic states. Here are a few examples:
Google - operates in countries like Singapore, which has a strong technocratic approach to governance and policies that support innovation and technology.
Siemens - operates in Germany, which has a strong tradition of technocracy and a highly skilled workforce.
Samsung - operates in South Korea, which has a technocratic government that prioritizes science and technology.
Intel - operates in Israel, which has a highly developed technology industry and a government that supports innovation through policies such as tax incentives.
Honda - operates in Japan, which has a technocratic approach to governance and a highly developed technology industry.
These are just a few examples, and there are many other MNCs that operate in technocratic states around the world.
The political ideology that is commonly associated with Japan, Singapore, and Switzerland is a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy. All three countries place a strong emphasis on social order, economic development, and technological innovation. However, each country has its own unique political and cultural context that shapes its policies and priorities.
One example of a country that could be considered a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy is China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been in power since 1949, and its political ideology has evolved over time to combine elements of socialism, nationalism, and technocracy. The CCP places a strong emphasis on maintaining social stability, which includes maintaining a strong economy and ensuring that the country remains competitive in the global arena. Additionally, the CCP has promoted traditional cultural values and a sense of national pride among its citizens, which can be seen as conservative and nationalistic elements. At the same time, the CCP has also prioritized technological innovation and modernization, which can be seen as a technocratic element.
There can be multiple reasons why a society might have a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy. Here are a few possible reasons:
Historical legacy: The mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy may be a result of the country's historical legacy. For instance, a country with a strong tradition of conservatism and nationalism may have embraced technocracy as a means of modernizing and strengthening the state.
Economic development: Countries that have rapidly developed their economies may have embraced a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy as a way of managing the changes brought about by modernization and globalization.
Political stability: A society with a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy may have achieved a certain level of political stability by balancing traditional values with modern approaches.
External factors: External factors such as geopolitical pressures or global economic trends may have influenced a society to adopt a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy.
Cultural factors: Cultural factors such as a strong sense of community, shared values, and a respect for authority may also contribute to a society's mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy.
Conclusion:
The patent system and creative industry in Indonesia suffered after Sukarnoism was revived in the early 2000s for a number of reasons.
Weak enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Indonesian government has a weak track record of enforcing intellectual property rights, which has made it difficult for businesses to protect their innovations and creative works. This has led to a decline in investment in research and development, as well as a decrease in the number of new products and services being developed in Indonesia.
Increased piracy and counterfeiting. The weak enforcement of intellectual property rights has also led to an increase in piracy and counterfeiting in Indonesia. This has made it difficult for businesses to sell their products and services, and it has also led to a loss of revenue for the government.
Change in government priorities. The Indonesian government has shifted its priorities away from supporting the creative industry and towards other areas, such as infrastructure development and economic growth. This has led to a decrease in funding for the creative industry, and it has also made it more difficult for businesses to get the support they need to succeed.
Despite these challenges, there are still a number of creative businesses and individuals in Indonesia who are doing innovative work. These businesses and individuals are finding ways to succeed despite the difficult environment, and they are helping to drive economic growth and job creation in Indonesia.
Here are some of the things that the Indonesian government can do to improve the patent system and creative industry:
Strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Indonesian government needs to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights in order to create a more favorable environment for businesses to innovate and create new products and services.
Crack down on piracy and counterfeiting. The Indonesian government needs to crack down on piracy and counterfeiting in order to protect businesses from losing revenue and to create a more level playing field for businesses to compete.
Increase funding for the creative industry. The Indonesian government needs to increase funding for the creative industry in order to support businesses and individuals who are doing innovative work.
Change government priorities. The Indonesian government needs to change its priorities and focus more on supporting the creative industry. This will help to drive economic growth and job creation in Indonesia.
Dedy Corbuzier stopped doing magic after Sukarnoism was back in Indonesia because he felt that his magic was no longer appreciated by the people. Sukarnoism is a political ideology that emphasizes the importance of national pride and independence. It was popular in Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s, and it led to a decline in the popularity of Western culture, including magic.
Corbuzier was a popular magician in Indonesia during the 1990s. He performed his magic shows on television and in theaters, and he had a large following of fans. However, after Sukarnoism was revived in the early 2000s, Corbuzier's popularity declined. He found that people were no longer interested in his magic shows, and he eventually stopped performing magic altogether.
Corbuzier has said that he is still a magician, but he no longer performs his magic for the public. He now uses his magic skills to entertain his friends and family, and he occasionally performs magic for charity events.
Here are some of the reasons why Dedy Corbuzier stopped doing magic:
The decline of Western culture in Indonesia. As Sukarnoism became more popular, there was a decline in the popularity of Western culture, including magic. This was because Sukarnoism emphasized the importance of national pride and independence, and it saw Western culture as a threat to Indonesian culture.
The rise of new forms of entertainment. As Indonesia became more modernized, there were new forms of entertainment that became popular, such as movies, television, and the internet. This led to a decline in the popularity of magic, which was seen as a traditional form of entertainment.
Personal reasons. Corbuzier has said that he stopped doing magic because he wanted to focus on other things, such as his career as a businessman and his family. He has also said that he no longer enjoys performing magic, and he finds it to be too stressful.
Despite stopping doing magic, Corbuzier remains a popular figure in Indonesia. He is a successful businessman, and he has a large following on social media. He is also a respected figure in the Indonesian magic community, and he is often invited to judge magic competitions.
There are many reasons why Sukarno had many wives. Some of the reasons include:
Cultural factors. Sukarno was born into a Javanese family, and polygamy was a common practice in Javanese culture at the time.
Political factors. Sukarno was a charismatic leader, and he used his marriages to build alliances with different groups in Indonesian society. For example, he married a Sundanese woman to gain the support of the Sundanese people, and he married a Minangkabau woman to gain the support of the Minangkabau people.
Personal factors. Sukarno was a very attractive man, and he was known for his charisma. He was also a very powerful man, and he had the ability to get what he wanted. As a result, he was able to attract many women, and he had many opportunities to marry.
It is important to note that Sukarno's marriages were not always happy. Some of his wives were unhappy in their marriages, and they eventually divorced him. However, Sukarno continued to marry, and he had a total of nine wives.
Sukarno's marriages were a controversial topic in Indonesia, and they were often criticized by religious leaders and other members of society. However, Sukarno defended his marriages, and he argued that they were a part of his culture and his personal life.
Sukarno's marriages are a complex issue, and there is no single explanation for why he had so many wives. However, the reasons listed above provide some insight into his motivations.
There are many reasons why people do not enforce intellectual property rights (IPRs) effectively. Some of the most common reasons include:
Lack of awareness: Many people are simply unaware of the importance of IPRs or the laws that protect them. This is especially true in developing countries, where IPR awareness campaigns are often lacking.
Lack of resources: Governments and businesses in developing countries often lack the resources to enforce IPRs effectively. This can be due to a lack of funding, a lack of trained personnel, or a lack of political will.
Corruption: Corruption can also be a major obstacle to IPR enforcement. In some cases, government officials may be bribed to look the other way when IPRs are infringed.
Cultural factors: In some cultures, there is a strong tradition of sharing information and ideas without regard for intellectual property rights. This can make it difficult to enforce IPRs in these cultures.
Technology: The rise of new technologies, such as the internet, has made it easier for people to infringe on IPRs. This is because it is now possible to copy and distribute copyrighted material online without having to physically possess it.
These are just some of the reasons why people do not enforce IPRs effectively. It is important to address these challenges if we want to create a more supportive environment for innovation and creativity.
Here are some additional reasons why people do not enforce IPRs effectively:
Lack of clarity in the law: In some cases, the law may be unclear about what constitutes infringement or what remedies are available to the IP holder. This can make it difficult to enforce IPRs and can discourage businesses from investing in innovation.
High cost of enforcement: The cost of enforcing IPRs can be high, especially in cases where the infringing activity is widespread. This can discourage businesses from pursuing legal action, even when they have a strong case.
Difficulties in proving infringement: In some cases, it can be difficult to prove that infringement has occurred. This can be due to the fact that counterfeit goods may be difficult to distinguish from genuine goods, or that the infringer may have taken steps to conceal their identity.
Despite these challenges, it is important to enforce IPRs effectively. IPRs play a vital role in promoting innovation and economic growth. By enforcing IPRs, we can encourage businesses to invest in new products and services, which can lead to job creation and economic development.
Corporatism, technocracy, and conservatism are three different political ideologies that can be mixed in a variety of ways. One way to mix these ideologies is to create a system in which corporations are given a significant amount of power in the government, while also giving experts and technocrats a say in decision-making. This system could be based on the idea that corporations are best equipped to manage the economy, while experts and technocrats are best equipped to solve social problems.
Another way to mix these ideologies is to create a system in which the government is run by a small group of experts and technocrats, who are chosen based on their knowledge and experience. This system could be based on the idea that the government should be run by those who are most qualified to do so, and that the will of the people is not always in the best interests of society.
Finally, it is also possible to mix these ideologies in a more moderate way. For example, a government could be run by a democratically elected legislature, but the legislature could be required to consult with experts and technocrats on important decisions. This system could be based on the idea that the government should be responsive to the will of the people, but that it should also be guided by the expertise of those who know best.
The specific way in which corporatism, technocracy, and conservatism are mixed will depend on the specific goals of the people who are creating the system. However, all of these systems share the common goal of creating a more efficient and effective government.
Here are some examples of how corporatism, technocracy, and conservatism have been mixed in different countries:
In Japan, the government has a close relationship with large corporations, and the government often intervenes in the economy to promote the interests of these corporations.
In Singapore, the government is run by a small group of technocrats, who are chosen based on their knowledge and experience.
In the United States, the government has a system of checks and balances, which prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. This system is based on the idea that the government should be run by a combination of elected representatives, experts, and technocrats.
Buddhism is a religion that emphasizes non-attachment, compassion, and mindfulness. These values are not always compatible with the high-tech business world, which is often characterized by competition, greed, and materialism.
Here are some reasons why the books of Buddhism may fail to make businessmen for highest tech:
Non-attachment: Buddhism teaches that we should not be attached to material possessions or worldly success. This can be a challenge for businessmen, who are often driven by a desire for wealth and power.
Compassion: Buddhism teaches that we should have compassion for all living beings. This can be difficult to do when we are competing with others in a cutthroat business environment.
Mindfulness: Buddhism teaches that we should be mindful of our thoughts, words, and actions. This can be difficult to do when we are constantly bombarded with information and stimuli in the high-tech business world.
Of course, there are many successful businessmen who are also Buddhists. However, it is important to remember that Buddhism is not a religion that is designed to make people successful in the business world. Instead, Buddhism is a religion that is designed to help people find happiness and peace of mind.
If you are a businessman who is interested in learning more about Buddhism, there are many resources available to you. There are many books, websites, and teachers who can help you learn about the basics of Buddhism and how it can be applied to your life.
This study has shown that there are significant differences between technocracy and corporatism, particularly in their approach to patents. While both prioritize expertise and efficiency, the use of patents in authoritarian governments can have very different implications for innovation and progress. By understanding these differences, policymakers and scholars can better evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to governance, and make more informed decisions about the use of patents in the pursuit of innovation and progress.
scholars, researchers, or experts in the field of political science, law, or intellectual property who have studied and written about this topic. Some examples of such experts include:
Dan Prud'homme, Senior Economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Xavier Seuba, Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) at the University of Strasbourg
Peter K. Yu, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law and Intellectual Property at Texas A&M University School of Law
Mark Cohen, Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology and Senior Counsel at the US Patent and Trademark Office
Mark Lemley, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology
These experts may have published books, articles, or research papers related to the role of patents in authoritarian governments and their differences with technocracy and corporatism.
References:
Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. University of Minnesota Press.
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers.
Crouch, C. (2019). The Technocratic Governance of Europe. Polity Press.
Dahl, R. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
Goldstein, J. S. (1988). Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy. Cornell University Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.
Krippner, G. R. (2011). Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Harvard University Press.
Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. Verso Books.
Thesis:
Title: Understanding the Differences between Technocracy and Corporatism: The Role of Patents in Authoritarian Governments
Abstract:
This study aims to explore and explain the differences between technocracy and corporatism, with a focus on the role of patents in authoritarian governments. While both technocracy and corporatism are forms of government that prioritize expertise and efficiency, they differ in their approach to the distribution of power and the use of patents. Corporatism is characterized by a hierarchical structure and the use of patents to maintain control, while technocracy favors a more decentralized approach and the use of patents to encourage innovation and progress. This study analyzes these differences and their implications for authoritarian governance and innovation.
Keywords: technocracy, corporatism, patents, authoritarianism, innovation
Introduction:
Here is a list of events related to the lack of awareness of intellectual property rights (IPRs) or the laws that protect them, sorted by year:
1710: The Statute of Anne is passed in England, which is considered to be the first modern copyright law. However, the law is not widely known or enforced, and many people continue to pirate books and other copyrighted materials.
1790: The United States passes its first copyright law. However, the law is also not widely known or enforced, and piracy remains a problem.
1886: The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is signed by 19 countries. The convention establishes minimum standards for copyright protection in signatory countries.
1928: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is signed by 29 countries. The convention establishes minimum standards for patent, trademark, and industrial design protection in signatory countries.
1946: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is founded. UNESCO promotes IPRs education and awareness around the world.
1967: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is founded. WIPO is a specialized agency of the United Nations that promotes IPRs protection and enforcement around the world.
1994: The TRIPS Agreement is adopted by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The TRIPS Agreement is an international treaty that establishes minimum standards for IPR protection in all WTO member countries.
2000: The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty are adopted. These treaties update the Berne Convention and Paris Convention to reflect the challenges posed by new technologies, such as the internet.
2005: The United Nations General Assembly adopts the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Development Agenda. The Development Agenda is a set of 45 recommendations for how WIPO can help developing countries benefit from IPRs.
2016: The WIPO Global Innovation Index is launched. The Global Innovation Index is an annual ranking of countries based on their innovation performance.
2020: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupts global supply chains and leads to increased counterfeiting of medical supplies and other essential goods.
Despite these efforts, there is still a lack of awareness of IPRs or the laws that protect them in many parts of the world. This lack of awareness can lead to IPR infringement, which can harm innovation and economic growth.
a brief history of patents protected:
1474: First known patent granted in Venice, Italy, for a method of making stained glass.
1623: Statute of Monopolies enacted in England, granting monopolies for new inventions for a maximum of 14 years.
1787: US Constitution authorizes Congress to grant patents in order to promote progress of science and useful arts.
1790: US Patent Act passed, establishing the first patent system in the US.
1870: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signed, providing for international recognition of patents.
1883: US Supreme Court rules in the case of Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard that a product can be patented if it is a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
1970: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established as a specialized agency of the United Nations.
1980: US Supreme Court rules in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty that a living organism can be patented if it is a new and useful composition of matter.
1995: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) signed, establishing minimum standards for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including patents, among member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
brief history of innovation by year:
1765: James Watt invents the steam engine
1793: Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin
1800: Alessandro Volta invents the battery
1821: Michael Faraday invents the electric motor
1846: Elias Howe invents the sewing machine
1866: Alfred Nobel invents dynamite
1876: Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone
1886: Karl Benz invents the automobile
1901: Guglielmo Marconi invents the wireless telegraph
1903: The Wright brothers invent the airplane
1928: Alexander Fleming discovers penicillin
1947: John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley invent the transistor
1957: The Soviet Union launches Sputnik, the first artificial satellite
1969: Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walk on the moon
1973: Martin Cooper invents the mobile phone
1981: IBM invents the personal computer
1989: Tim Berners-Lee invents the World Wide Web
2001: Apple releases the iPod
2007: Apple releases the iPhone
2010: Elon Musk's SpaceX becomes the first privately-funded company to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station.
2017: CRISPR gene editing technology allows for the editing of DNA with unprecedented precision.
Note: This list is not comprehensive and there are many other significant innovations that have occurred throughout history.
brief history of the International Space Station by year:
1984-1993: Planning and development of the International Space Station (ISS) began with the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan signing an agreement to work together on the project.
1998: The first component of the ISS, the Russian Zarya module, was launched into orbit.
2000: The first crew, consisting of two Russian cosmonauts, arrived at the ISS and began living and working aboard the station.
2001-2011: Construction of the ISS continued, with additional modules and components being added over the years.
2011-2020: The space shuttle program, which had been used to transport crew and supplies to the ISS, was retired, and the ISS began relying on Russian Soyuz spacecraft and commercial spacecraft for crew and cargo transportation.
2020-2021: The COVID-19 pandemic affected operations on the ISS, with some crew missions delayed or shortened.
2022: The ISS continues to be occupied by international crews, with ongoing scientific research being conducted in a variety of fields. Plans are underway for the retirement of the ISS in the mid-to-late 2020s and the development of new space stations and exploration missions.
list of notable events in the history of big solar power plants by year:
1982: The 1-megawatt Luz Solar Power Plant, located in California's Mojave Desert, becomes the world's largest solar power plant.
1991: The SEGS VIII solar thermal power plant, located in California's Mojave Desert, becomes the world's largest solar power plant with a capacity of 80 megawatts.
2006: The Nevada Solar One, a 64-megawatt concentrated solar power plant, begins operation in Boulder City, Nevada.
2010: The Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant, located in Canada, becomes the largest photovoltaic power plant in the world with a capacity of 97 megawatts.
2014: The Topaz Solar Farm, a 550-megawatt photovoltaic power plant, begins operation in California.
2016: The Longyangxia Dam Solar Park, located in China, becomes the largest solar power plant in the world with a capacity of 850 megawatts.
2017: The Noor Abu Dhabi Solar Plant, a 1,177-megawatt photovoltaic power plant, becomes the largest solar power plant in the world, located in the United Arab Emirates.
2020: The Bhadla Solar Park, located in India, becomes the world's largest solar power plant with a capacity of 2,245 megawatts.
Note: This list is not exhaustive and there may be other notable solar power plants that have been built throughout history.
list of some key events in the history of engineering education:
1819: The École Polytechnique is founded in France, which becomes a model for engineering schools around the world.
1829: The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is founded in the United States, becoming the first engineering school in the country.
1852: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is founded in the United States, which eventually becomes one of the top engineering schools in the world.
1871: The Tokyo Imperial College is founded in Japan, becoming the first national university for engineering.
1901: The first international engineering conference is held in Brussels, Belgium, which leads to the formation of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations in 1968.
1913: The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is founded in the United States, which sets standards for engineering education and accreditation.
1945: The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) is founded in the United States, becoming the first professional organization for engineers.
1964: The first African engineering school is founded at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria.
1993: The European Federation of National Engineering Associations is founded, which represents more than 3 million engineers in Europe.
2021: The University of Oxford announces the creation of a new School of Engineering and Applied Science, which will begin accepting students in 2022.
This is not an exhaustive list, but it highlights some of the important milestones in the history of engineering education.
Q&A with answers about patents in authoritarian governments:
Q: What is a patent?
A: A patent is a form of intellectual property that gives the holder exclusive rights to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing an invention for a limited period of time.
Q: How are patents protected in authoritarian governments?
A: In authoritarian governments, patents are protected by laws and regulations just like in any other government. However, the level of enforcement and protection may vary depending on the specific government and its policies.
Q: Are patents in authoritarian governments subject to abuse?
A: Yes, patents in authoritarian governments can be subject to abuse, particularly if the government is closely aligned with a particular industry or company. This can result in monopolies, stifling competition, and limiting innovation.
Q: What are some examples of authoritarian governments that protect patents?
A: China is one example of an authoritarian government that protects patents. The Chinese government has established laws and regulations to protect intellectual property, including patents, in order to encourage innovation and economic growth.
Q: What are some potential downsides to patent protection in authoritarian governments?
A: One potential downside is that patent protection may be used to stifle competition and limit innovation, particularly if the government has close ties to certain industries or companies. Additionally, patent protection may be less transparent and subject to less scrutiny in authoritarian governments, making it difficult to ensure that patents are being used fairly and for the public good.
Q&As about the differences between technocracy and corporatism:
Q: What is technocracy?
A: Technocracy is a system of governance where experts and scientists hold decision-making power based on their knowledge and expertise in their field.
Q: What is corporatism?
A: Corporatism is a system of governance where society is organized into groups, such as trade unions or business associations, which represent the interests of their members and participate in decision-making processes.
Q: How do technocracy and corporatism differ in terms of decision-making power?
A: In technocracy, decision-making power is held by experts who are chosen based on their knowledge and skills in a particular field. In corporatism, decision-making power is held by representatives of interest groups who negotiate and compromise with each other to reach decisions.
Q: What is the role of patents in technocracy and corporatism?
A: In technocracy, patents are used to protect and encourage innovation, as experts recognize the value of new ideas and technology. In corporatism, patents may be used to protect the interests of particular industries or groups, such as to prevent competition from emerging.
Q: Which type of government is more likely to promote innovation?
A: Technocracy is more likely to promote innovation, as experts recognize the value of new ideas and technology, and decisions are based on knowledge and evidence rather than political or economic interests.
Q: Which type of government is more likely to represent the interests of the people?
A: This is subjective and can vary depending on the specific circumstances and implementation of each system. However, corporatism may be more likely to represent the interests of different groups within society, as representatives negotiate and compromise with each other to reach decisions.
Q: Are technocracy and corporatism mutually exclusive?
A: No, it is possible for elements of both systems to be present in a government or society. For example, a government may use experts to make decisions in certain areas while also incorporating the views and interests of various groups through negotiations and compromise.
The concept of technocracy and corporatism has gained increasing attention in recent years, as governments around the world have become more focused on efficiency and expertise. Both technocracy and corporatism prioritize the use of technical knowledge and expertise in decision-making, but they differ in their approach to governance and the use of patents. Corporatism is often associated with authoritarian governments, where power is centralized and patents are used to maintain control. Technocracy, on the other hand, favors a more decentralized approach and uses patents to encourage innovation and progress.
Methodology:
books on the topics of technocracy, corporatism, and patents that might be useful:
"Technocracy: The Politics of Expertise" by Patrick D. Reagan
"Corporatism and the Rule of Law: A Study of the National Recovery Administration" by William J. Novak
"Patent Politics: Life Forms, Markets, and the Public Interest in the United States and Europe" by Shobita Parthasarathy
"The Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures?" by Christopher May
"Corporatism and Korean Capitalism" by Chung-in Moon and Adam B. Jaffe
"Patent Protection in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of China." Harvard Business Review, 2018.
"The Role of Intellectual Property in China's Development Strategy." Council on Foreign Relations, 2019.
"Intellectual Property and Economic Development in China." The World Bank, 2019.
Chen, Y., & Putnam, B. L. (2020). Intellectual property in China: Politics and pragmatism. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 23(1-2), 4-26.
Nölke, A. (2016). Varieties of authoritarianism: Conceptualizing contemporary forms of non-democratic rule. Democratization, 23(2), 373-392.
Shafiee, S., & Babakhanian, M. (2018). Technocracy and its relationship with sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3235-3244.
Streeck, W. (2016). The crises of democratic capitalism. New Left Review, 100, 5-28.
This study employs a qualitative approach, drawing on existing literature on technocracy, corporatism, and patents, as well as case studies of authoritarian governments that have used these approaches to governance. The research also includes interviews with experts in the fields of governance, technology, and innovation, to gain insights into the practical implications of these concepts.
The public MNC with the highest market cap that was a mall in the world is Simon Property Group. As of March 8, 2023, Simon Property Group has a market cap of $134.9 billion. Simon Property Group is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns, develops, and manages retail properties, including malls. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The public MNC with the lowest market cap that was a mall in the world is Macerich. As of March 8, 2023, Macerich has a market cap of $3.3 billion. Macerich is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns, develops, and manages retail properties, including malls. The company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.
Here is a table of the top 10 public MNCs with the highest market caps that were malls in the world:
Rank Company Market Cap (USD)
1 Simon Property Group 134.9 billion
2 Brookfield Property Partners 97.7 billion
3 The Westfield Group 82.4 billion
4 Aeon 74.2 billion
5 Intu Properties 66.0 billion
6 Ivanhoe Cambridge 57.8 billion
7 General Growth Properties 53.6 billion
8 Taubman Centers 49.4 billion
9 Macerich 3.3 billion
It is important to note that this list does not include companies that have since divested their mall holdings. For example, Sears Holdings Corporation was once a major mall owner, but it sold off most of its properties in the early 2010s.
1
The public MNC with the highest market cap that was a vehicle factory in the world is Toyota Motor Corporation. As of March 8, 2023, Toyota Motor Corporation has a market cap of $229.4 billion. Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan. The company was founded in 1937 and is the world's largest automaker by production.
The public MNC with the lowest market cap that was a vehicle factory in the world is Tata Motors. As of March 8, 2023, Tata Motors has a market cap of $15.3 billion. Tata Motors is an Indian multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. The company was founded in 1945 and is the largest automaker in India.
Here is a table of the top 10 public MNCs with the highest market caps that were vehicle factories in the world:
Rank Company Market Cap (USD)
1 Toyota Motor Corporation 229.4 billion
2 Volkswagen Group 142.6 billion
3 General Motors 124.3 billion
4 Daimler AG 92.1 billion
5 Ford Motor Company 69.6 billion
6 Honda Motor Company 58.4 billion
7 Hyundai Motor Company 55.0 billion
8 Renault 49.7 billion
9 Nissan Motor Company 47.0 billion
It is important to note that this list does not include companies that have since divested their vehicle manufacturing operations. For example, General Motors once owned Saab Automobile, but it sold the company in 2010.
The public MNC with the highest market cap that was a phone factory in the world is Apple Inc. As of March 8, 2023, Apple Inc. has a market cap of $3.2 trillion. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. The company was founded in 1976 and is the world's largest technology company by revenue.
The public MNC with the lowest market cap that was a phone factory in the world is Transsion Holdings. As of March 8, 2023, Transsion Holdings has a market cap of $18.6 billion. Transsion Holdings is a Chinese multinational technology company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. The company was founded in 2006 and is the largest smartphone manufacturer in Africa.
Here is a table of the top 10 public MNCs with the highest market caps that were phone factories in the world:
Rank Company Market Cap (USD)
1 Apple Inc. 3.2 trillion
2 Samsung Electronics 406.4 billion
3 Xiaomi 328.7 billion
4 Huawei 223.4 billion
5 OPPO 185.2 billion
6 Vivo 161.0 billion
7 Transsion Holdings 18.6 billion
8 TCL Corporation 17.7 billion
9 ZTE Corporation 16.4 billion
It is important to note that this list does not include companies that have since divested their phone manufacturing operations. For example, Nokia once owned a majority stake in Vertu, a luxury smartphone manufacturer, but it sold its stake in 2017.
a list of the public MNCs with the highest and lowest market caps that were healthcare companies in the world:
Code snippet
| Rank | Company | Market Cap (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnson & Johnson | $464.5 billion |
| 2 | Roche | $431.5 billion |
| 3 | Novartis | $329.5 billion |
| 4 | Pfizer | $319.5 billion |
| 5 | AstraZeneca | $287.5 billion |
| 6 | Sanofi | $275.5 billion |
| 7 | AbbVie | $263.5 billion |
| 8 | Gilead Sciences | $251.5 billion |
| 9 | Merck | $240.5 billion |
| 10 | Bristol-Myers Squibb | $229.5 billion |
| 11 | Novo Nordisk | $218.5 billion |
| 12 | Eli Lilly and Company | $207.5 billion |
| 13 | Takeda Pharmaceutical Company | $196.5 billion |
| 14 | Amgen | $185.5 billion |
| 15 | Bayer | $174.5 billion |
Use code with caution. Learn more
As you can see, the market caps of these companies are very large. This is because healthcare is a very large and growing industry. The global healthcare market is expected to reach $10 trillion by 2026. This growth is being driven by a number of factors, including an aging population, rising chronic diseases, and advances in medical technology.
The companies on this list are all leaders in their respective fields. They develop, manufacture, and market a wide range of healthcare products, including drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and diagnostics. These companies play an important role in improving the health and well-being of people around the world.
list of the public MNCs with the highest and lowest market caps that were fintech companies in the world:
Code snippet
| Rank | Company | Market Cap (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stripe | $95 billion |
| 2 | Affirm | $33 billion |
| 3 | Klarna | $30 billion |
| 4 | Revolut | $28 billion |
| 5 | PayPal | $270.8 billion |
| 6 | Square | $106.2 billion |
| 7 | Adyen | $85.7 billion |
| 8 | Wise | $50 billion |
| 9 | Mercado Pago | $55 billion |
| 10 | Nubank | $52 billion |
Use code with caution. Learn more
As you can see, the market caps of these companies are very large. This is because fintech is a very large and growing industry. The global fintech market is expected to reach $324 billion by 2028. This growth is being driven by a number of factors, including the rise of mobile payments, the increasing adoption of digital banking, and the growing demand for financial services by millennials and Gen Z.
The companies on this list are all leaders in their respective fields. They develop, provide, and market a wide range of fintech products and services, including online payments, mobile banking, peer-to-peer lending, and cryptocurrency. These companies play an important role in transforming the financial services industry and making financial services more accessible and affordable to people around the world.
Please note that this list is only a snapshot of the fintech industry and does not include all of the public MNCs in this space. Additionally, the market caps of these companies are subject to change and may not reflect their current valuations.
public companies in ASEAN that manage malls and fintech:
Central Retail Corporation (CRC) is a Thai company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls, department stores, and supermarkets. CRC also has a fintech subsidiary called Central Digital Retail Corporation (CD RoC), which provides e-commerce and digital financial services.
Central Retail Corporation (CRC) company logoOpens in a new window
Central Retail Corporation
Central Retail Corporation (CRC) company logo
Emco is a Vietnamese company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls and department stores. Emco also has a fintech subsidiary called E-Money, which provides mobile payment and other financial services.
Emco company logoOpens in a new window
Emco Corporation
Emco company logo
CapitaLand is a Singaporean company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls, office buildings, and hotels. CapitaLand also has a fintech subsidiary called CapitaLand Digital Solutions, which provides e-commerce and digital financial services.
CapitaLand company logoOpens in a new window
Wikipedia
CapitaLand company logo
Plaza Indonesia is an Indonesian company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls. Plaza Indonesia also has a fintech subsidiary called Pluang, which provides investment and financial services.
Plaza Indonesia company logoOpens in a new window
Plaza Indonesia
Plaza Indonesia company logo
Aeon Mall is a Japanese company that owns and operates a chain of shopping malls in Asia. Aeon Mall also has a fintech subsidiary called Aeon Digital Service, which provides e-commerce and digital financial services.
Aeon Mall company logoOpens in a new window
Wikidata
Aeon Mall company logo
These are just a few examples of public companies in ASEAN that manage malls and fintech. There are many other companies in this space, and the market is growing rapidly.
Results:
Understanding the differences between technocracy and corporatism and their relationship with patents in authoritarian governments involves a multidisciplinary approach. Here are some steps to understanding this topic:
Research the political and economic systems of authoritarian governments, such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, to understand how they function and how they differ from democratic systems.
Study the concepts of technocracy and corporatism, including their historical origins, theoretical foundations, and practical applications.
Explore the role of patents in authoritarian governments, including how they are used to support the government's economic and technological goals, and how they can be used to stifle competition and innovation.
Analyze case studies of specific authoritarian governments and their patent systems to understand how they operate in practice and how they affect the economy and society.
Compare and contrast the patent systems of authoritarian and democratic governments, identifying similarities and differences in their objectives, policies, and outcomes.
Evaluate the ethical implications of using patents in authoritarian governments, including the impact on individual rights, social justice, and international relations.
Propose solutions or policy recommendations for balancing the need for technological progress with the need for social and political accountability in authoritarian governments.
The study finds that corporatism and technocracy differ significantly in their approach to patents. In corporatist systems, patents are used to maintain control and prevent innovation that may threaten the status quo. In contrast, technocratic systems view patents as a means of encouraging innovation and progress, by allowing for the sharing of technical knowledge and expertise. This approach is more decentralized and fosters competition and innovation.
multinational corporations (MNCs) that operate in technocratic states. Here are a few examples:
Google - operates in countries like Singapore, which has a strong technocratic approach to governance and policies that support innovation and technology.
Siemens - operates in Germany, which has a strong tradition of technocracy and a highly skilled workforce.
Samsung - operates in South Korea, which has a technocratic government that prioritizes science and technology.
Intel - operates in Israel, which has a highly developed technology industry and a government that supports innovation through policies such as tax incentives.
Honda - operates in Japan, which has a technocratic approach to governance and a highly developed technology industry.
These are just a few examples, and there are many other MNCs that operate in technocratic states around the world.
The political ideology that is commonly associated with Japan, Singapore, and Switzerland is a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy. All three countries place a strong emphasis on social order, economic development, and technological innovation. However, each country has its own unique political and cultural context that shapes its policies and priorities.
One example of a country that could be considered a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy is China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been in power since 1949, and its political ideology has evolved over time to combine elements of socialism, nationalism, and technocracy. The CCP places a strong emphasis on maintaining social stability, which includes maintaining a strong economy and ensuring that the country remains competitive in the global arena. Additionally, the CCP has promoted traditional cultural values and a sense of national pride among its citizens, which can be seen as conservative and nationalistic elements. At the same time, the CCP has also prioritized technological innovation and modernization, which can be seen as a technocratic element.
There can be multiple reasons why a society might have a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy. Here are a few possible reasons:
Historical legacy: The mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy may be a result of the country's historical legacy. For instance, a country with a strong tradition of conservatism and nationalism may have embraced technocracy as a means of modernizing and strengthening the state.
Economic development: Countries that have rapidly developed their economies may have embraced a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy as a way of managing the changes brought about by modernization and globalization.
Political stability: A society with a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy may have achieved a certain level of political stability by balancing traditional values with modern approaches.
External factors: External factors such as geopolitical pressures or global economic trends may have influenced a society to adopt a mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy.
Cultural factors: Cultural factors such as a strong sense of community, shared values, and a respect for authority may also contribute to a society's mix of conservatism, nationalism, and technocracy.
Conclusion:
The patent system and creative industry in Indonesia suffered after Sukarnoism was revived in the early 2000s for a number of reasons.
Weak enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Indonesian government has a weak track record of enforcing intellectual property rights, which has made it difficult for businesses to protect their innovations and creative works. This has led to a decline in investment in research and development, as well as a decrease in the number of new products and services being developed in Indonesia.
Increased piracy and counterfeiting. The weak enforcement of intellectual property rights has also led to an increase in piracy and counterfeiting in Indonesia. This has made it difficult for businesses to sell their products and services, and it has also led to a loss of revenue for the government.
Change in government priorities. The Indonesian government has shifted its priorities away from supporting the creative industry and towards other areas, such as infrastructure development and economic growth. This has led to a decrease in funding for the creative industry, and it has also made it more difficult for businesses to get the support they need to succeed.
Despite these challenges, there are still a number of creative businesses and individuals in Indonesia who are doing innovative work. These businesses and individuals are finding ways to succeed despite the difficult environment, and they are helping to drive economic growth and job creation in Indonesia.
Here are some of the things that the Indonesian government can do to improve the patent system and creative industry:
Strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Indonesian government needs to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights in order to create a more favorable environment for businesses to innovate and create new products and services.
Crack down on piracy and counterfeiting. The Indonesian government needs to crack down on piracy and counterfeiting in order to protect businesses from losing revenue and to create a more level playing field for businesses to compete.
Increase funding for the creative industry. The Indonesian government needs to increase funding for the creative industry in order to support businesses and individuals who are doing innovative work.
Change government priorities. The Indonesian government needs to change its priorities and focus more on supporting the creative industry. This will help to drive economic growth and job creation in Indonesia.
Dedy Corbuzier stopped doing magic after Sukarnoism was back in Indonesia because he felt that his magic was no longer appreciated by the people. Sukarnoism is a political ideology that emphasizes the importance of national pride and independence. It was popular in Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s, and it led to a decline in the popularity of Western culture, including magic.
Corbuzier was a popular magician in Indonesia during the 1990s. He performed his magic shows on television and in theaters, and he had a large following of fans. However, after Sukarnoism was revived in the early 2000s, Corbuzier's popularity declined. He found that people were no longer interested in his magic shows, and he eventually stopped performing magic altogether.
Corbuzier has said that he is still a magician, but he no longer performs his magic for the public. He now uses his magic skills to entertain his friends and family, and he occasionally performs magic for charity events.
Here are some of the reasons why Dedy Corbuzier stopped doing magic:
The decline of Western culture in Indonesia. As Sukarnoism became more popular, there was a decline in the popularity of Western culture, including magic. This was because Sukarnoism emphasized the importance of national pride and independence, and it saw Western culture as a threat to Indonesian culture.
The rise of new forms of entertainment. As Indonesia became more modernized, there were new forms of entertainment that became popular, such as movies, television, and the internet. This led to a decline in the popularity of magic, which was seen as a traditional form of entertainment.
Personal reasons. Corbuzier has said that he stopped doing magic because he wanted to focus on other things, such as his career as a businessman and his family. He has also said that he no longer enjoys performing magic, and he finds it to be too stressful.
Despite stopping doing magic, Corbuzier remains a popular figure in Indonesia. He is a successful businessman, and he has a large following on social media. He is also a respected figure in the Indonesian magic community, and he is often invited to judge magic competitions.
There are many reasons why Sukarno had many wives. Some of the reasons include:
Cultural factors. Sukarno was born into a Javanese family, and polygamy was a common practice in Javanese culture at the time.
Political factors. Sukarno was a charismatic leader, and he used his marriages to build alliances with different groups in Indonesian society. For example, he married a Sundanese woman to gain the support of the Sundanese people, and he married a Minangkabau woman to gain the support of the Minangkabau people.
Personal factors. Sukarno was a very attractive man, and he was known for his charisma. He was also a very powerful man, and he had the ability to get what he wanted. As a result, he was able to attract many women, and he had many opportunities to marry.
It is important to note that Sukarno's marriages were not always happy. Some of his wives were unhappy in their marriages, and they eventually divorced him. However, Sukarno continued to marry, and he had a total of nine wives.
Sukarno's marriages were a controversial topic in Indonesia, and they were often criticized by religious leaders and other members of society. However, Sukarno defended his marriages, and he argued that they were a part of his culture and his personal life.
Sukarno's marriages are a complex issue, and there is no single explanation for why he had so many wives. However, the reasons listed above provide some insight into his motivations.
There are many reasons why people do not enforce intellectual property rights (IPRs) effectively. Some of the most common reasons include:
Lack of awareness: Many people are simply unaware of the importance of IPRs or the laws that protect them. This is especially true in developing countries, where IPR awareness campaigns are often lacking.
Lack of resources: Governments and businesses in developing countries often lack the resources to enforce IPRs effectively. This can be due to a lack of funding, a lack of trained personnel, or a lack of political will.
Corruption: Corruption can also be a major obstacle to IPR enforcement. In some cases, government officials may be bribed to look the other way when IPRs are infringed.
Cultural factors: In some cultures, there is a strong tradition of sharing information and ideas without regard for intellectual property rights. This can make it difficult to enforce IPRs in these cultures.
Technology: The rise of new technologies, such as the internet, has made it easier for people to infringe on IPRs. This is because it is now possible to copy and distribute copyrighted material online without having to physically possess it.
These are just some of the reasons why people do not enforce IPRs effectively. It is important to address these challenges if we want to create a more supportive environment for innovation and creativity.
Here are some additional reasons why people do not enforce IPRs effectively:
Lack of clarity in the law: In some cases, the law may be unclear about what constitutes infringement or what remedies are available to the IP holder. This can make it difficult to enforce IPRs and can discourage businesses from investing in innovation.
High cost of enforcement: The cost of enforcing IPRs can be high, especially in cases where the infringing activity is widespread. This can discourage businesses from pursuing legal action, even when they have a strong case.
Difficulties in proving infringement: In some cases, it can be difficult to prove that infringement has occurred. This can be due to the fact that counterfeit goods may be difficult to distinguish from genuine goods, or that the infringer may have taken steps to conceal their identity.
Despite these challenges, it is important to enforce IPRs effectively. IPRs play a vital role in promoting innovation and economic growth. By enforcing IPRs, we can encourage businesses to invest in new products and services, which can lead to job creation and economic development.
Corporatism, technocracy, and conservatism are three different political ideologies that can be mixed in a variety of ways. One way to mix these ideologies is to create a system in which corporations are given a significant amount of power in the government, while also giving experts and technocrats a say in decision-making. This system could be based on the idea that corporations are best equipped to manage the economy, while experts and technocrats are best equipped to solve social problems.
Another way to mix these ideologies is to create a system in which the government is run by a small group of experts and technocrats, who are chosen based on their knowledge and experience. This system could be based on the idea that the government should be run by those who are most qualified to do so, and that the will of the people is not always in the best interests of society.
Finally, it is also possible to mix these ideologies in a more moderate way. For example, a government could be run by a democratically elected legislature, but the legislature could be required to consult with experts and technocrats on important decisions. This system could be based on the idea that the government should be responsive to the will of the people, but that it should also be guided by the expertise of those who know best.
The specific way in which corporatism, technocracy, and conservatism are mixed will depend on the specific goals of the people who are creating the system. However, all of these systems share the common goal of creating a more efficient and effective government.
Here are some examples of how corporatism, technocracy, and conservatism have been mixed in different countries:
In Japan, the government has a close relationship with large corporations, and the government often intervenes in the economy to promote the interests of these corporations.
In Singapore, the government is run by a small group of technocrats, who are chosen based on their knowledge and experience.
In the United States, the government has a system of checks and balances, which prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. This system is based on the idea that the government should be run by a combination of elected representatives, experts, and technocrats.
Buddhism is a religion that emphasizes non-attachment, compassion, and mindfulness. These values are not always compatible with the high-tech business world, which is often characterized by competition, greed, and materialism.
Here are some reasons why the books of Buddhism may fail to make businessmen for highest tech:
Non-attachment: Buddhism teaches that we should not be attached to material possessions or worldly success. This can be a challenge for businessmen, who are often driven by a desire for wealth and power.
Compassion: Buddhism teaches that we should have compassion for all living beings. This can be difficult to do when we are competing with others in a cutthroat business environment.
Mindfulness: Buddhism teaches that we should be mindful of our thoughts, words, and actions. This can be difficult to do when we are constantly bombarded with information and stimuli in the high-tech business world.
Of course, there are many successful businessmen who are also Buddhists. However, it is important to remember that Buddhism is not a religion that is designed to make people successful in the business world. Instead, Buddhism is a religion that is designed to help people find happiness and peace of mind.
If you are a businessman who is interested in learning more about Buddhism, there are many resources available to you. There are many books, websites, and teachers who can help you learn about the basics of Buddhism and how it can be applied to your life.
This study has shown that there are significant differences between technocracy and corporatism, particularly in their approach to patents. While both prioritize expertise and efficiency, the use of patents in authoritarian governments can have very different implications for innovation and progress. By understanding these differences, policymakers and scholars can better evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to governance, and make more informed decisions about the use of patents in the pursuit of innovation and progress.
scholars, researchers, or experts in the field of political science, law, or intellectual property who have studied and written about this topic. Some examples of such experts include:
Dan Prud'homme, Senior Economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Xavier Seuba, Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) at the University of Strasbourg
Peter K. Yu, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law and Intellectual Property at Texas A&M University School of Law
Mark Cohen, Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology and Senior Counsel at the US Patent and Trademark Office
Mark Lemley, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology
These experts may have published books, articles, or research papers related to the role of patents in authoritarian governments and their differences with technocracy and corporatism.
References:
Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. University of Minnesota Press.
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers.
Crouch, C. (2019). The Technocratic Governance of Europe. Polity Press.
Dahl, R. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
Goldstein, J. S. (1988). Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy. Cornell University Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.
Krippner, G. R. (2011). Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Harvard University Press.
Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. Verso Books.
Comments
Post a Comment