MODUE # 5 (WSU FALL 2014)

The Triple Convergence was where basically all ten of the flatteners pulled together, and started working to create a new level playing field.  Convergence 1 was more of the flatteners finding each other and taking root, in order to connect with one another.  Southwest Airlines realized that there were enough people using the internet, and that were technically educated enough to be able to download and print their own boarding passes at home.  This was the beginning along with Minolta showing us how to scan, fax, print etc...all from one machine.  These flattening forces, needed time to work together, and create new platforms, and ways of doing things with technology.  Convergence 2 was basically the call for a change in habits.  It brought about a change in the manufacturing process, like Walmart being able to utilize it's supply chain effectively.  It lead to better processes and a set of business practices that mutually reinforced each other. Convergence 3 allowed collaboration amongst the masses.  This global community will be allowed to play together, and discover and innovate like never before.  "What is occurring in the world now is just the tip of the iceberg" friedman says.  It is unsettling, because the competition is so fierce, and everyone has to play their A game in order to win.

India versus Indiana in my opinion was a win win situation.  The Indian engineers were struggling to get work, because of the Indian Government social economic policies.  So they offered to do the job at a reduced rate, and I feel that they exploited each other.  This happens everyday in business, especially when it comes to global horizontal collaborations.   When we use outsourcing we are exploiting the cheaper costs of another community, is this exploitation, or smart business.  I would assume that in this case that everyone wins, because it creates jobs, and lowers taxes, and puts money back into the economy.  I believe that the government need not interfere with the industries, and that it should have been separated into smaller pieces.  My opinion is that whatever works for the economy, and works for business, works for the people.  You will never make everyone happy, and that is the bottom line.  We exploit each other in business, that is the nature of business.  If we didn't exploit each other, then no one would ever make a profit, which would probably lead to higher prices, and a horrible economy. 

Intellectual property to me is like a copyright, or patent on something.  Where companies formulate ideas, and try to keep those ideas to themselves, before other companies mimic those ideas and share them with the world.  They do it with software, and music, and many other types of products.  Everything can be copied, or counterfeited in today's world.  I see it everyday with off brands, and clones of products that are not the real thing.  The Ipod was intellectual property at one point, and now there are hundreds of MP3 players and brands.  Companies feed of each others success.  I see it in my own business, where another company follows everything we do that is successful in order to create it's own success.  they offer the same lower quality product at a lower price, and try to sell quantity not quality.  Intellectual property laws need to be adjusted, and constantly scrutinized in order for the inventors to reap the rewards.  The problem I see is that it borders on monopolizing, much like Microsoft was scrutinized for many years ago.  I think the bottom line is that Intellectual Property Rights should have royalties involved.  The company that invents the initial product, should be paid a royalty off of every similar product sold.  Why not?  They do it in the music business every single day!