All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Robin Hoods or thieves? A Foucauldian analysis of international trade policies regarding software piracy
Unformatted Document Text:  Foucauldian analysis of international trade policies 25 products are adopted: increased sales, and goodwill toward the company (i.e., a positive disposition to the company in the face of competition, price increases, new products, etc.). Third, trends toward deregulation and globalization have contributed to the marketplace becoming a “leading actor” in knowledge production (for example, how the economy of any given country should work, in the eyes of those “dominant schools of academic economists” Henderson (1999) described. And, “As knowledge is created and controlled as private property, knowledge as common good is destroyed. This is the inherent meaning of privatization (private = to deprive). It deprives communities of access to their common heritage and renders this the entitlement of individual owners” (Hamelink, 1997, p. 114-115; see also Piquette quote, p. 17??, and the Dakhovskyy quote, p. 20??, herein). And these forms of dominance have led to situations such as that created by Section 301 and other provisions widely perceived as unfair. [As asked above, how can these provisions be considered “international?” see note p. 18] Even if these rules are not considered unfair by some with true multilateral interests, we argue they are illogical for the economic reasons mentioned in the last paragraph, and others. These policies, individually and collectively, seem counterproductive to the interests of Microsoft and other software makers, as well as being a hefty burden on taxpayers supporting government trade representatives, law enforcement officials, investigators, and others. Rules take a lot of energy and money to make and enforce, yet these efforts in the international trade arena have yielded very little toward stated goals. The use of Foucault’s questions to “deconstruct” the system is useful in seeing tangible effects of discursive

Authors: Malyshev, Yuri. and Hamilton, Ann.
first   previous   Page 25 of 34   next   last



background image
Foucauldian analysis of international trade policies 25
products are adopted: increased sales, and goodwill toward the company (i.e., a positive
disposition to the company in the face of competition, price increases, new products, etc.).
Third, trends toward deregulation and globalization have contributed to the
marketplace becoming a “leading actor” in knowledge production (for example, how the
economy of any given country should work, in the eyes of those “dominant schools of
academic economists” Henderson (1999) described. And, “As knowledge is created and
controlled as private property, knowledge as common good is destroyed. This is the
inherent meaning of privatization (private = to deprive). It deprives communities of access
to their common heritage and renders this the entitlement of individual owners”
(Hamelink, 1997, p. 114-115; see also Piquette quote, p. 17??, and the Dakhovskyy quote,
p. 20??, herein). And these forms of dominance have led to situations such as that created
by Section 301 and other provisions widely perceived as unfair. [As asked above, how can
these provisions be considered “international?” see note p. 18] Even if these rules are not
considered unfair by some with true multilateral interests, we argue they are illogical for
the economic reasons mentioned in the last paragraph, and others. These policies,
individually and collectively, seem counterproductive to the interests of Microsoft and
other software makers, as well as being a hefty burden on taxpayers supporting
government trade representatives, law enforcement officials, investigators, and others.
Rules take a lot of energy and money to make and enforce, yet these efforts in the
international trade arena have yielded very little toward stated goals. The use of Foucault’s
questions to “deconstruct” the system is useful in seeing tangible effects of discursive


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 25 of 34   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.