UTF-8 http://feraios.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Google

Sunday, November 25, 2012

OUR PROPOSED POLICIES ARE BEING PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED.THE NEXT MOVE FOR EU's POLITES IS TOWARDS DIRECT DEMOCRACY

in order the european zone to become  competative again.

 

USA to leave Saudi Arabia behind in terms of crude production

The U.S. Department of Energy recently released a message stating that in 2012 oil production in the country will increase by seven percent. America is opening up its resources and reviewing its energy policy, experts say. If the production of crude oil and other liquid hydrocarbons continues to grow at the same pace, in a couple of years the United States will catch up to the indicators of Saudi Arabia. According to analysts of the International Energy Agency, the level of oil production in Saudi Arabia will remain unchanged until 2017. At the same time, the United States intends to accelerate the development of major oil and gas fields, particularly in Alaska.
In addition, American mining companies will increase the production of non-ferrous and rare earth metals to reduce the dependence of the U.S. industry on imports. In 2010, large deposits of rare earth metals were discovered on the American continent. Two deposits located in the states of Idaho and Montana can meet the needs of the country. As the new deposits are being developed in the U.S., China will lose the monopoly on the production and sale of rare earth elements. But the real sensation was a significant increase in production of "black gold" in the United States. The success of oil drillers is due to the implementation of horizontal drilling technology that greatly accelerates oil production.
The U.S. has the richest oil fields, 35,000 of them are located in the country. Among them are 300 giant fields (over 13 million tons) and 5 mega-gigantic ones (300 million tons). The U.S. holds 12th place in the world in terms of the volume of usable known oil reserves.
However, the U.S. is also the world's largest consumer of oil and needs 23 million barrels a day. Since 1972, the volume of production of "black gold" began to decline. By 1995, the U.S. production was 368 million tons, and in 2000 - 350 million. Then flows of cheap oil from abroad poured into the country.
In 2002, after the September 11 attacks, the United States became the world's largest oil producer. This was in response to a sharp reduction in production of "black gold" in Saudi Arabia due to lower prices. Later the American oil indicators somewhat lowered. After the disaster at the BP platform in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, Barack Obama criticized the U.S. energy policy. The President called this policy unsustainable, emphasizing that the U.S. dependence on foreign oil was too strong. In February of 2012, the President once again mentioned this in his speech in Miami. Obama said that the U.S. needs for energy depend on the global events, for example, the unrest in the Middle East that gave impetus to speculative operations on Wall Street. He also said that American scientists and engineers needed to work out other options - for example, solar and nuclear energy as well as biofuels, "The Voice of America" reported.
However, the abandonment of hydrocarbons is not being discussed. In contrast, in the last three to four years, the situation has changed and the United States saw the oil and gas boom. This year, America has returned to the 14-year high level for the extraction of "black gold" (the maximum was recorded in 1998). In the near future, America may unseal the oil reserves created in 1997.
There are at least two reasons for the change in Washington's policy in the oil sector. First, the U.S. is interested in reducing its dependence on energy imports from the unstable countries in the Middle East. Second, the increase in production of oil, gas and rare earth metals in the country is closely linked to the changes in the global prices of minerals. Now Washington and Riyadh do not hide their interest in a long-term decline in oil prices. For Russia, this scenario is highly undesirable.
In addition, Washington is trying to weaken the positions of Iran, a major oil and gas exporter. In September, Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said that Saudi Arabia was seriously concerned with the rise in prices for oil. At the same time, the White House welcomed the initiatives of Riyadh aimed at their subsequent decline.
However, the increase in the production of "black gold" in the United States is unlikely to lead to the exports of petroleum products from the United States to the world market, analysts say. The U.S. needs cheap oil to meet the vast needs of the domestic market. One way or the other, the concerted actions of Saudi Arabia and the United States to regulate the price of oil are likely to lead to a turmoil in global markets in the near future.
Yuri Sosinsky-Semikhat
 

USSR to rise from ashes through joint Eurasian currency





The creation of the supranational currency within the scope of the Customs Union is inevitable, Prime Minister of Armenia, Tigran Sargsyan, believes. According to him, this should be the next stage of integration within the organization, which makes sense from the point of view of simplification of currency circulation in transfers. The new currency may see the light on January 1, 2015.
As the prime minister of Armenia said during the meeting with members of the Club of Editors of the CIS, Baltic countries and Georgia, it would be advantageous for three member states of the Customs Union to have a supranational currency. "This is beneficial both to economic entities and citizens. What's the point in having a national currency and losing money during transfers?" said Sargsyan.
The Armenian Prime Minister also said that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are now at about the same level of development, "and no country is going to live at the expense of another." According to Sargsyan, five years of coordinated monetary and fiscal policy will be enough for everyone to realize the need for a single currency. However, for representatives of the Russian side this question is important already today.  The active discussion of the issue began in the summer of 2012.
"In the summer of this year, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev called for the creation of a single currency for Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. He repeated a similar idea at the recent CIS forum in Yalta - Alexander Razuvayev, Ph.D. and Director Analytical Department of Alpari said in an interview with Pravda.Ru. - In principle, it may seem that the idea looks a little strange against the background of the crisis in the euro zone and the probability that not only Greece, but perhaps Spain may leave the euro zone, but there is a grain of common sense here, because money decides a lot in today's world. Only a single currency may actually unite the single economic space."
Originally, the main challenge to the single currency of the Customs Union was the fact that the idea was presented by the Russian government from the dominant position. That is, Russia offered the CIS countries to join the ruble zone, while Moscow would retain the right to control the money-printing process, and other countries would automatically fall into dependence on the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry. Needless to say that this approach left Belarus and Kazakhstan dissatisfied. As a result, everyone started to pull the blanket over in this matter.
"Some would say that Belarus has planned economy, some would say that there are problems in Kazakhstan. However, we must realize that Russia's economy is much larger than that of Kazakhstan, and especially of Belarus. One shouldn't forget that Russia has world's third largest international reserves, more than 500 billion dollars, and Russia's GDP this year is about 2 trillion. Accordingly, given the positive macroeconomic situation in Russia, this includes the growth of more than 4 percent, and the budget surplus, so to form a currency area like that would be easy enough, taking into consideration the fact that there is political will for that on the part of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. As for Belarus, the idea was very popular 10 years ago, but during that time Mr. Lukashenko wanted to have the emission center.  Well, of course, neither the Russian Finance Ministry nor the Russian Central Bank could accept that," says Alexander Razuvayev.
Another major problem of the Customs Union was Ukraine's reluctance to join it. Experts say that the full integration within the Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Community is impossible without the participation of Ukraine. However, it was reported at the end of last week that Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated the impossibility of joining the Customs Union, as the country sets the course for European integration. The reasonable arguments saying that the Russian market was much more advantageous for Ukraine than the Ukrainian was for Russia, have not brought any results.
Surprisingly, though, the free trade idea between the CIS countries and Russia inspired the Crimean Republic, the first president of which, Yuri Meshkov, unexpectedly expressed his intention to join the Customs Union regardless of the Ukraine. Moscow does not hope much for the influence of the Crimea, although it may ring another "bell" for Ukraine's Yanukovych. Experts tend to see the "hand of the Kremlin" here, rather than an independent decision made by the head of the autonomous territory. However, it is no secret that Russia can make Ukraine join the union through the use of more abrupt, manipulative measures.
"In today's world, only 200-250-million-strong markets can be self-sufficient. Kazakhstan and Russia, plus Belarus is somewhat less. And, accordingly, the system can work only if Ukraine is integrated. One shouldn't forget that Russia can put pressure on Ukraine through energy carriers," says Alexander Razuvayev.
To date, Russia has taken a detached attitude to Ukraine. Ukrainian officials say that there could be a possibility for the country to join the Customs Union in the event the economic situation in the euro zone worsens. For the time being, Ukraine is standing at a crossroads, wondering which union to join.
"Either way, it is believed that the new currency will appear on 1 January 2015, although possibly earlier. Political sovereignty can hardly be questioned. It is unlikely that it will be the Russian ruble. Most likely, it will be a new Eurasian currency, and, consequently, we will have a new Eurasian Central Bank. Of course, it will be a local currency, because the size of combined economies is still a lot smaller than the economy of the United States, China, or the European Union. However, it will really mark the actual denunciation of Belovezha Accords and restoration of the Soviet Union, albeit in a new version 2.0 and on absolutely new market and capitalist principles," the expert concluded.
Maria Snytkova

SOURCE PRAVDA.RU
 




Outcome of the EDA's steering board meeting


Ministers of Defence met on 19 November 2012 in the composition of the European Defence Agency (EDA) steering board, under the chairmanship of Catherine Ashton as the Head of the Agency.
Ministers took note of the significant progress of pooling and sharing initiatives such as air-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, the European SATCOM procurement cell and medical support. Additionally, Ministers endorsed the EDA's proposal of additional pooling and sharing opportunities in the areas of cyber defence, route clearance CIED, NH90, air transport, and maritime landscaping. They also adopted the Agency's voluntary code of conduct on pooling and sharing aiming at supporting cooperative efforts of EU Member States to develop defence capabilities.
Additionally, ministers welcomed the Agency's work in support of national defence ministries vis-à-vis the development of EU policies in industry and market, research and innovation, European space policy, cyber security and defence, SESAR, radio spectrum and maritime security.
 
 
 
 

Labels:

Monday, November 12, 2012

IT MIGHT BE IF THE OLIGARCHIC CONSORTIUM DIDN'T OCCUPY,MONOPOLIZE THE SECTOR

Intellectual Property Rights and Antitrust – is there light at the end of the tunnel?

 
The chief economists of the European Union and United States competition authorities are prepared to suggest to standard-setting organizations a set of common principles to resolve longstanding intellectual property rights and antitrust issues. If confirmed and endorsed, the principles could minimize anti-competitive risk in standard-setting processes.
The background. Standard-setting, or the processes by means of which an industry elects a common production technology to converge on, has lately been one of the main issues at the centre of antitrust practitioners’ attention. In Europe, a number of major alleged abuse cases have been scrutinized in depth by the European Commission (most notably the Rambus and the Qualcomm cases).  Other cases, of no less relevance, are currently under investigation: Samsung, following a complaint from Apple; and Motorola, prompted by complaints from Apple and Microsoft. And even though Joaquín Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner, has said that the European Commission will not tolerate misuse of patent rights and has invited high-tech companies to ‘peace talks’ under threat of regulatory action, the surge of antitrust complaints and law suits is not likely to ease, on either side of the Atlantic.
At the origin of all these disputes there lies a very straightforward question which, unfortunately, does not have a straightforward answer: if a company holding IP rights which are essential to a standard commits to license those patents on Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, what are the practical consequences?
FRAND commitments are usually required by standard-setting organizations in order to mitigate the risk of ex-post “hold-up” abuses. When a technology is adopted as standard, it may then lack effective substitutes: the industry is de-facto locked into the standard and patent holders may be tempted to charge royalties that exceed what they would have been able to charge if alternative technologies were still exerting a credible competitive constraint in the market. FRAND commitments aim at preventing such an abuse. But the intrinsic ambiguity of the wording leaves ample scope for subjective interpretation. And, therefore, for litigation.
Prevention is better than cure. In the economic literature, there have been some attempts, including by myself, to identify guiding principles that should drive the assessment of alleged FRAND abuse cases (see, for example:  Swanson and Baumol, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (RAND) Royalties,  Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power in Antitrust Law Journal, 2005; and Mariniello, Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms: a Challenge for Competition Authorities in Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2011). But a clear-cut methodology that could be implemented to identify the exact price a patent holder should be entitled to ask under FRAND obligations has not yet been suggested.
There is a growing consensus that improving standard-setting processes could be the right way forward. Setting clear and efficient ex-ante rules should prevent, or, at the very least, minimize ex-post alleged abuse cases, and hence limit the risk of erroneous antitrust decisions. The fact that EU and US authorities’ respective economists are working on some guiding principles for standard-setting organization is good news.
Not yet official, the preliminary suggestions’ list released by Fiona Scott Morton, US Department of Justice’s chief economist, seems to consist of 4 main principles. I report them below, following the wording used by Scott Morton:
  1. Commitments remain with IP regardless of owner. That is: if a company buys a patent that the previous owner committed to release under FRAND terms, the purchaser will have to abide by that commitment.
  2. Well – specified procedure to lower cost of dispute resolution. According to Scott Morton, standard-setting organization should evaluate options (such as arbitration, allowed royalty rate ranges, specification of the base to which royalty should apply etc.) to minimize the risk of lengthy and costly court proceedings.
  3. Cash option. Patent holders should identify a cash price for their essential patents in order to simplify assessment. Complex cross-licensing agreements are often difficult to assess by third parties.
  4. Well-specified process before an injunction/exclusion sought. Constraining the ability of patent holders to threaten to exclude a product from the market during bargaining would reduce the ability of the licensor to extract royalties above FRAND rates.

     Above I wrote about the work of the European Union and United States competition authorities’ chief economists on a set of common principles that could improve standard-setting processes and limit ex-post abuse. To recap, the preliminary list circulated two weeks ago in the US contains four suggested principles (see Fiona Scott Morton’s, DOJ’s chief economist, slides): (1) commitments remain with IP regardless of owner; (2) well – specified procedure to lower cost of dispute resolution; (3) cash option; (4) well-specified process before an injunction/exclusion sought. Below are some first impressions on that list.
Principle 1 makes lot of economic sense. Imagine a licensor could commit to FRAND and then sell a FRAND-free patent to another company. The buyer would not abide by FRAND commitments and therefore would charge royalties higher than those that would have been charged by the original patent holder. To the extent that FRAND is binding (ie the royalties that maximise the patent holder's profits are above the FRAND level), original patent holders would then always have an incentive to sell their patents to other companies. This would generate an extra rent to be split between the original and the new patent holders on the basis of their respective bargaining power. At the equilibrium, all patents with a binding FRAND commitment would be sold and FRAND would be totally emptied.
At least on the European side of the Atlantic, this principle is, however, not new. The European Commission has already been confronted with cases involving the transfer of IP rights subject to FRAND commitments (eg IPCom versus Nokia), and has endorsed the principle in its new guidelines on the applicability of Art. 101 TFEU to horizontal cooperation agreements. According to paragraph 288 of the guidelines: "to ensure the effectiveness of the FRAND commitment, there would also need to be a requirement on all participating IPR holders who provide such a commitment to ensure that any company to which the IPR owner transfers its IPR (including the right to license that IPR) is bound by that commitment, for example through a contractual clause between buyer and seller".ETSI, the European telecommunication standards body, is reported to have reached a consensus on this principle (see MLex coverage on October 18: Etsi eyes consensus on tech licensing terms for patent transfer).
Because it aims to speed up the resolution of patent disputes, Principle 2 is also very welcome. The difficulty here is to suggest a design that would not tilt the balance of power in favour of either of the involved parties. For example, defining an "allowed range of FRAND royalty rate" before the adoption of a standard could threaten to empty the meaning of FRAND. Since standards are adopted under conditions of very high uncertainty, FRAND commitments are on purpose designed to be flexible. At the time of the selection of the standard, patent holders and prospective licensees may not be able to correctly foresee what the future value of the technology would be. The market has not yet materialised and consumers have not yet expressed their preferences. In that sense, FRAND aims at reducing the risk of abuse of ex-post market power while maintaining a high degree of flexibility, in order to allow the price of the patents to adjust to future market developments, when consumers' preferences are revealed. Defining an allowed range of royalties ex-ante could therefore boil down to diverting FRAND from its true purpose.
Likewise, Principle 3 aims to make negotiation processes more efficient and transparent, but its implementation is not straightforward. While patent holders may have a better idea than third parties of the value of their patent portfolio, they would still struggle to put a price tag on their patents before the adoption of the standard, while the standard itself is being forged and the degree of uncertainty is very high. The value of a patent portfolio is often defined through negotiation. It is the interaction between different companies (licensors or licensees) with different endowments, commercial strategies and bargaining power, which ultimately brings out the value of the patents. How companies would define the cash option is not straightforward, and guidance on how principle 3 should be implemented is therefore indispensable.
Principle 4, finally, questions the patent holder's ability to seek injunctive relief against an infringing company. The underlying economic argument is appealing: injunctions create immediate, short-term and certain harm to consumers because they interrupt actual supply. Limiting access to injunctions would keep the market going and spare consumers from this short-term pain. And it should not affect innovation incentives because the patent holder would still be able to claim compensation later on in the process. This reasoning however crucially depends on the assumption that the judicial system is perfectly efficient and capable of determining the right price for patents, and that investors perfectly anticipate this outcome. If that is not the case, different companies are likely to be affected in different ways by the introduction of a limitation to the right to seek injunctive relief. A small innovative company or start-up with limited financial resources is likely to be affected differently than a "patent troll", and so are different companies' incentives to innovate. The prospect of a lengthy judicial process with an uncertain outcome might simply not be a viable option for companies that rely completely on licensing to reward their initial investment decisions. In other words, courts are only imperfect substitutes for arms-length negotiations, and the distribution of rents between patent holders and prospective licensees is not independent of the allocation of the right to injunctive relief. Interfering with that right implies a redistribution of rents, which ultimately might lead to higher social welfare, but is not a free-lunch: somebody has to lose. The design of the rules limiting the use of injunctive relief should therefore be flexible enough to allow for a more lenient approach when ex-ante incentives to innovate are under threat. Protecting incentives is the raison d'être of patents, after all.
There is also an argument of principle that supports limiting the use of injunctions in relation to FRAND-bearing patents. According to Scott Morton: "the essence of the F/RAND commitment is that the firm has voluntarily chosen to accept royalties (money) rather than pursue a business model based on exclusion". That is true, but only to the extent that a licensee is willing to pay royalties which are, indeed, FRAND. The FRAND commitment implies a willingness of both licensor and licensee to negotiate at arms-length. The key question to address when deciding whether to allow an injunction is therefore: has a patent holder complied with its duty of good will and engaged in a constructive negotiation with the licensee in order to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution? If hard evidence (emails, phone records etc) show that this is the case, the right to seek an injunction cannot be questioned on the basis of principle but should be evaluated on effects with a case-by-case approach.

Summing up, the fact that the EU and US competition authorities' economists are working on solutions to improve the standard-setting process is certainly good news. The proposed principles, however, seem  to raise a number of issues, and rigorous economic analysis will be needed in order to understand if their adoption will have a positive effect on consumers, both in terms of fostering price competition and preserving incentives to innovate.
Moreover, besides economics, one policy question should still be addressed: provided that the principles are backed by economic analysis, when the list of suggestions is finalised, how could they effectively bind standard-setting organisations? In what form will they be communicated to the outside world? Would they be "recommendation" letters to standard-setting organisations or will they be made part of new guidelines? The tool that will be used and the chosen trade-off between speed of process and enforceability will ultimately have great relevance. For the moment, we should expect that most guidance on the interaction between IP and competition policy will continue to come from case law. So the answer to our question: is there light at the end of the tunnel?cannot be conclusive for the moment. The competition authorities appear to be making a first step in the right direction. However, designing the right principles to minimise competition issues in standard-setting is not a straightforward process. And even if there is light, reaching the end of the tunnel will still take some time.

By Mario Mariniello

SOURCE  http://www.bruegel.org
 

Labels:

Sunday, November 04, 2012

EPAPHOS DESPITE THE CRISIS CONTINUES ITS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WORK

DEAR READERS,FELLOWS AND COLLEAGUES,CHAIRESTHAI :-)
OUR TEAMWORK PARTICIPATED DURING OCTOBER LIKE CONTINUESLY DOES FOR THE LAST 4  YEARS,TO VARIOUS CONFERENCES,WORKSHOPS AND EVENTS AND CONTRIBUTED BY ITS KNOWN  new political innovative   WAYS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND RESEARCH INSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION.SOME OF THEM ARE PRESENTED  BELOW :


i)OPEN DAYS  2012

A)SMART ACADEMIC CITIES :THE WAY TO SUSTAINABLE AND INCLUSIVE REGIONAL
 GROWTH  (EC CHARLEMAGNE BUILDING ON 9/10/12)

AN INTERESTING EVENT DURING THE OPEN DAYS UNIVERSITY 2012




B)STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF NATIONS AND REGIONS IN THE RECOVERY STRATEGY  (COMMITTEE OF REGIONS  ON  9/10/12 )

MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND VETERANS HONOURABLE CITIZEN  MR.KEITH
BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT,
PROF. AND GENERAL MANAGER OF KULEUVEN UNIVERSITY  HON.CITIZEN MR KOENRAAD DEBACKERE,
MEP AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,HON.CITIZEN MRS JILL EVANS,REPRESENTING
THE WALES REGION,
AND OTHER IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSED AND PRESENTED SOME PARADIGMS OF THEIR ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES.

C)SUPPORT  FOR  THE ACTION OF COVENANT OF MAYORS SIGNATORIES
(COMMITTEE OF REGIONS ON 10/10/12,DURING OPEN DAYS)

A CLASSICAL IMPORTANT GATHERING WITH THE PRESENCE OF  :
THE PRESIDENT  OF COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,HON.CITIZEN MR.RAMONLUIS VALCARCEL SISO,
THE HEAD OF THE COVENANT  OF MAYORS OFFICE,HON.CITIZEN MS KRISTINA DELY,
THE MAYOR OF DOBRICH (BG),HON.CITIZEN DETELINA NIKOLOVA,
THE REGIONAL MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT,ENERGY AND URBAN RENEWAL,BRUSSELS CAPITAL REGIONS (BE),HON.CITIZEN MS EVELYNE HUYTEBROECK,
THE MAYOR  OF AGUENDA (PT),HON.CITIZEN MR GIL NADAIS,
THE MAYOR OF VENICE (IT),HON.CITIZEN MR.GIORGIO ORSONI,
AND A LOTS OF OTHER REGIONAL BODIES AND REPRESENTATIVES.



ii)4TH EUROPEAN INNOVATION SUMMIT


THE EX-PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,MEP HON.CITIZEN MR JERZY BUZEK,OPENED THE SUMMIT




A)THE EUROPEAN ENERGY STORAGE  CHALLENGE:IS POWER TO GAS THE ANSWER?
(EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON 10/10/12)

NO COMMENTS

B)DRIVERS AND ENABLERS OF INNOVATION -IMPLEMENTATION AT A REGIONAL LEVEL (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON 11/10/12)
 


DURING THIS EVENT ,IT WAS TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ASKED THE  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CLEANSKY,HON.CITIZEN  MR. ERIC DAUTRIAT,
WHAT THIS EU FUNDED BIG PROGRAM ,HAS DONE ABOUT OUR PROPOSAL AND CONSULTATION 3 YEARS AGO,REGARDING THE RESEARCH AND THE FINANCE FOR PROJECTS ,THROUGH SME'S AND INDIVIDUALS.
BECAUSE APART FROM THE FEW GIANT  COMPANIES IT WAS SEEN THE ABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHT AERONAUTICS,SOLAR FLIGHTS AND PERSONAL PRIVATE FLIGHTS,LIKE OUR COMPETITORS ALREADY ARE DOING AT THIS SECTOR.
THE ANSWER WAS THAT THE CLEANSKY HAS PROCEEDED FURTHER ON,BY INVESTING IN RESEARCH  AND INNOVATION PROJECTS AT THE SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (SME'S) BUT  NOT YET TO THE PRIVATE JETS OR OTHER FLYING TECHNOLOGIES  FOR PERSONAL USE.


iii)ANCIENT READINGS OF PLATO'S PHAEDO (BELGIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ON 8-10/10/12)

 WE PARTICIPATED AT THIS INTERESTING CONFERENCE ON BEHALF  OF THE COLLEAGUES AND MEMBERS FOR THE GROUP OF HELLENIC CLASSICAL  STUDIES

  ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/estudioshelenica/  ).


THE UNIVERSITIES OF KULEVEN,CAMBRIDGE,ULB,ADELAIDE,
MILANO,NEWCASTLE,ROMA,PLUS OTHER INSTITUTES AND STAKEHOLDERS,PRESENTED THEIR  VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOR THIS SUBJECT.



iv)FUTURE INTERNET ENTERPRISE  SYSTEMS CLUSTER MEETING
(DG ICT PREMISES ON 12/10/12)

A VERY STRONG AND INTERNATIONAL CLUSTER,PRESENTED ITS MAIN STAKEHOLDERS  VARIOUS POSITIONS.
FROM OUR POINT IT WAS DECLARED ONCE MORE THE  THESIS  FOR THE EUROPEAN INTERNET (SYNNET) ,IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SATELLITE GALILEO SYSTEM,WHICH COMPETES OTHER  STATE ZONES (USA,RUSSIA),BY BEING USED AS A PARADIGM.
ALSO IT WAS GIVEN THE  CHINA'S EXAMPLE,WHICH IS PROCEEDING RAPIDLY TOWARDS A ROBOTIC  ECONOMY,EVEN THOUGH THE LABOR COSTS ARE VERY CHEAP,BY INNOVATING AND IMPLEMENTING INTO THE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES.
ON THE CONTRARY OUR EUROPEAN STANCE REMAINS AT A MORE OR LESS  THEORETICAL LEVEL,DEPENDING FROM USA,CHINA,INDIA, AND RUSSIA AT  TECHNOLOGY,INDUSTRY AND ENERGY FIELDS.
THIS POLICY SURELY WILL TURN CITIZENS TO BECOMING ONLY CONSUMERS,IF THIS ALREADY  ISN'T HAPPENING,WHEN AT THE SAME TIME THE SCIENTIFIC  BRAINS AND SKILLS PLUS  OTHER POWERS ARE DEPARTING FOR THESE DESTINATIONS.

WE THANK  OUR SUPPORTERS,WHO BY THEIR WAYS ARE ASSISTING ,IN ORDER SUCH  A DIFFICULT TASK ,TO BE SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVED.

HYGEIAINETE
A.CH.


Labels: