TTCT – Sự kiên nhẫn dành cho nhóm Big Tech, gồm năm công ty công nghệ Mỹ Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook và Microsoft, rốt cuộc đã cạn.
Liên tiếp ở châu Âu và cả trên sân nhà, một loạt đơn kiện của chính quyền nhắm vào những gã khổng lồ công nghệ trong năm 2020 cho thấy những tượng đài này không hề “bất khả xâm phạm” như ta tưởng. Tiếp tục đọc “Big Tech tiếp tục bị phán xét”→
Welcome to our final newsletter of 2020. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support and interest in our work over the year. We will return in early January and in the meantime wish you an enjoyable festive break and every success in 2021.
New white paper: Digital trade in the Asia-Pacific
Deborah Elms 22 December 2020
As we move into 2021, what are the key issues facing digital trade in Asia? The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted global trade and upended many longstanding business models. Firms are rapidly shifting to develop or expand digital capabilities to manage highly altered supply and demand pressures. Despite the growing importance of digital trade, the ability of governments to tackle a range of issues of relevance to managing the online environment still lags behind the speed of innovation for firms. Effective and efficient regulatory policies can support continuing economic growth in the digital economy. Given the overwhelming importance of small firms to every country in Asia, failure to create supportive policies will impede the region’s attempt to advance sustainable and inclusive development. This new paper from the Hinrich Foundation – the first in a series of six reports on digital trade in the Asia-Pacific authored by Dr Deborah Elms, Executive Director at the Asian Trade Centre – identifies eight issues that governments and firms across the region will need to tackle to reap the full benefits of the digital opportunity.
In this short podcast our Director of Research, Dr Andrew Staples, invites Dr Deborah Elms to provide an overview of paper and to highlight the importance of the RCEP agreement for digital trade in Asia.
INTERVIEW WITH RESEARCH FELLOW Hinrich Foundation Research Fellow, Alex Capri, discusses his latest paper with Dr Staples. Released last week, Techno-nationalism and corporate governance examines how the US-China tech cold war has politicized the business environment for multinationals and the implications for corporate governance. Techno-nationalism, he observes, now requires firms to evaluate or restructure their cross-border operations to reduce risks.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT While 2020 proved to be challenging for all of us, it was also a productive year for our research fellows. Please find below a selection of our most read articles and papers on the key issues impacting global trade in 2020 including the coronavirus pandemic, geopolitical tensions and the US-China trade war, the emergence of “techno-nationalism,” the US presidential election and the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
By Phan Anh November 22, 2020 | 01:37 pm GMT+7A Vietnamese man plays game on a mobile phone. Photo by Shutterstock/Tuan Hung.Vietnam has the highest number of adult gamers in the world in 2020, according to a recently released global consumer survey by German data portal Statista.
Ninety four percent of Vietnamese said they gamed at least occasionally while nearly 20 percent said they were frequent gamers, according to the Statista Global Consumer Survey.
The U.K. government has rolled out new rules to protect Britain’s innovative companies from being snapped up by other nations.
But is it too little, too late? Arm was sold to Japan’s SoftBank in 2016 and DeepMind was sold to Google in 2014.
Even though DeepMind and Arm are no longer British in some people’s eyes, there are a number of other fast-growing tech companies that very much are.
Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson giving a statement in Downing Street in central London on April 27, 2020 after returning to work following more than three weeks off after being hospitalized with the Covid-19 illness.DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS
LONDON – The U.K. government introduced new rules this week that are designed to protect Britain’s best and brightest companies from being gobbled up by other, potentially hostile, nations.
Mckinsey.com In just a few months’ time, the COVID-19 crisis has brought about years of change in the way companies in all sectors and regions do business. According to a new McKinsey Global Survey of executives,1 their companies have accelerated the digitization of their customer and supply-chain interactions and of their internal operations by three to four years. And the share of digital or digitally enabled products in their portfolios has accelerated by a shocking seven years.2 Nearly all respondents say that their companies have stood up at least temporary solutions to meet many of the new demands on them, and much more quickly than they had thought possible before the crisis. What’s more, respondents expect most of these changes to be long lasting and are already making the kinds of investments that all but ensure they will stick. In fact, when we asked executives about the impact of the crisis on a range of measures, they say that funding for digital initiatives has increased more than anything else—more than increases in costs, the number of people in technology roles, and the number of customers.To stay competitive in this new business and economic environment requires new strategies and practices. Our findings suggest that executives are taking note: most respondents recognize technology’s strategic importance as a critical component of the business, not just a source of cost efficiencies. Respondents from the companies that have executed successful responses to the crisis report a range of technology capabilities that others don’t—most notably, filling gaps for technology talent during the crisis, the use of more advanced technologies, and speed in experimenting and innovating.3Tiếp tục đọc “How COVID-19 has pushed companies over the technology tipping point—and transformed business forever”→
As the compiler of Decree 91 on fighting spam SMS, calls and messages, an official with the Authority for Information Security, Dang Huy Hoang, said he was happy that he could contribute to reducing ‘garbage’ in digital space.
Spam messages, e-mails and calls have been a burning issue for years. How to prevent spam is a topic of discussion at many National Assembly’s sessions.
CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc —————
Hà Nội, ngày 14 tháng 8 năm 2020
CHỐNG TIN NHẮN RÁC, THƯ ĐIỆN TỬ RÁC, CUỘC GỌI RÁC
Căn cứ Luật Tổ chức Chính phủ ngày 19 tháng 6 năm 2015;
Căn cứ Luật Giao dịch điện tử ngày 29 tháng 11 năm 2005;
Căn cứ Luật Công nghệ thông tin ngày 29 tháng 6 năm 2006;
Căn cứ Luật Viễn thông ngày 23 tháng 11 năm 2009;
Căn cứ Luật Xử lý vi phạm hành chính ngày 20 tháng 6 năm 2012;
Căn cứ Luật Quảng cáo ngày 21 tháng 6 năm 2012;
Căn cứ Luật An toàn thông tin mạng ngày 19 tháng 11 năm 2015;
Căn cứ Luật An ninh mạng ngày 12 tháng 6 năm 2018;
Theo đề nghị của Bộ trưởng Bộ Thông tin và Truyền thông;
Chính phủ ban hành Nghị định về chống tin nhắn rác, thư điện tử rác, cuộc gọi rác.
NHỮNG QUY ĐỊNH CHUNG
Điều 1. Phạm vi điều chỉnh
Nghị định này quy định về chống tin nhắn rác, thư điện tử rác, cuộc gọi rác và quy định về quảng cáo bằng tin nhắn (SMS, MMS, USSD), thư điện tử và gọi điện thoại; quyền và nghĩa vụ của cơ quan, tổ chức, cá nhân và bổ sung quy định xử lý vi phạm hành chính về tin nhắn rác, thư điện tử rác, cuộc gọi rác.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department plans to accuse Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising in a lawsuit to be filed on Tuesday, the government’s most significant legal challenge to a tech company’s market power in a generation, according to officials at the agency.
In its suit, to be filed in a federal court in Washington, D.C., the agency will accuse Google, a unit of Alphabet, of illegally maintaining its monopoly over search through several exclusive business contracts and agreements that lock out competition, said the officials, who were not authorized to speak on the record. Such contracts include Google’s payment of billions of dollars to Apple to place the Google search engine as the default for iPhones.
The agency will argue that Google, which controls about 80 percent of search queries in the United States, struck agreements with phone makers using Alphabet’s Android operating system to pre-load the search engine on their phones and make it hard for rival search engines to become a replacement. By using contracts to maintain its monopoly, competition and innovation has suffered, the suit with argue.
The suit reflects the pushback against the power of the nation’s largest corporations, and especially technology giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. Conservatives like President Trump and liberals like Senator Elizabeth Warren have been highly critical of the concentration of power in a handful of tech behemoths.
Attorney General William P. Barr, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, has played an unusually active role in the investigation. He pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence. Mr. Barr has spoken publicly about the inquiry for months and set tight deadlines for the prosecutors leading the effort.
The lawsuit may stretch on for years and could set off a cascade of other antitrust lawsuits from state attorneys general. About four dozen states and jurisdictions have conducted parallel investigations and are expected to bring separate complaints against the company’s grip on technology for online advertising.
A victory for the government could remake one of America’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it has helped define since it was founded by two Stanford University graduate students in 1998.
But Google has long denied accusations of antitrust violations and is expected to fight the government’s efforts by using a global network of lawyers, economists and lobbyists. Alphabet, valued at $1.04 trillion and with cash reserves of $120 billion, has fought similar antitrust lawsuits in Europe.
The company says it has strong competition in the search market, with more people finding information on sites like Amazon. It says its services have been a boon for small businesses.
“A significant number of entities — spanning major public corporations, small businesses and entrepreneurs — depend on Google for traffic, and no alternate search engine serves as a substitute,” the report said. The lawmakers also accused Apple, Amazon and Facebook of abusing their market power.
The scrutiny reflects how Google has become a dominant player in communications, commerce and media over the last two decades. It controls 90 percent of the market for online searches, according to one estimate. That business is lucrative: Last year, Google brought in $34.3 billion in search revenue in the United States, according to the research firm eMarketer. That figure is expected to grow to $42.5 billion by 2022, the firm said.
The lawsuit is the result of an investigation that has stretched for more than a year. Prosecutors have spoken with Google’s rivals in technology and media, collecting information and documents that could be used to build a case.
Mr. Barr, a former telecom executive who once argued an antitrust case before the Supreme Court, signaled that he would put the tech giants under new scrutiny at his confirmation hearing in early 2019. He said that “a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers.”
He put the investigation under the control of his deputy, Jeffrey Rosen, who in turn hired an aide from a major law firm to oversee the case and other technology matters. Mr. Barr’s grip over the investigation tightened when the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, recused himself from the investigation because he had lobbied for Google’s acquisition of the ad service DoubleClick in 2007.
Mr. Barr pushed prosecutors to wrap up their inquiries — and decide whether to bring a case — before Election Day. While Justice Department officials are usually tight-lipped about their investigations until a case is filed, Mr. Barr publicly declared his intention to make a decision on the Google matter by the end of the summer. He mentioned the agency’s antitrust investigation when asked about unproven charges that conservative speech is stifled online.
This year, most of the roughly 40 lawyers building the case said they opposed bringing a complaint by Mr. Barr’s Sept. 30 deadline. Some said they would not sign the complaint, and several left the case this summer.
Google last faced serious scrutiny from an American antitrust regulator nearly a decade ago, when the Federal Trade Commission investigated whether it had abused its power over the search market. The agency’s staff recommended bringing charges against the company, according to a memo reported on by The Wall Street Journal. But the agency’s five commissioners voted in 2013 not to bring a case.
Other governments have been more aggressive against the big tech companies. The European Union has brought three antitrust cases against Google in recent years, focused on its search engine, advertising business and Android mobile operating system. Regulators in Britain and Australia are examining the digital advertising market, in inquiries that could ultimately implicate the company.
“It’s the most newsworthy monopolization action brought by the government since the Microsoft case in the late ‘90s,” said Bill Baer, a former chief of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. “It’s significant in that the government believes that a highly successful tech platform has engaged in conduct that maintains its monopoly power unlawfully, and as a result injures consumers and competition.”
Google and its allies will likely criticize the suit as being politically motivated. The Trump administration has attacked Google, which owns YouTube, and other online platform companies, as being slanted against conservative views.
The lawsuit will likely outlast the Trump administration itself. The government’s case against Microsoft took more than a decade to settle.
While it is possible that a new Democratic administration would review the strategy behind the case, some experts said it was unlikely that it would be withdrawn under new leadership.U.S. v. GoogleRead more about the legal battle that has been brewing for more than a year.
Political tensions between the U.S. and China have thrust technology and supply chains into the spotlight and threaten to fracture the internet.
Over the past few years, a growing chorus of voices have predicted a so-called splinternet, the idea that a kind of two-track internet could appear — one led by the U.S. and one by China.
Experts told CNBC’s “Beyond the Valley” podcast, that data is going to play a key part into the scale of any kind of fracturing of the internet that we use today.
China’s President Xi Jinping (L) and US President Donald Trump attend a working session on the first day of the G20 summit in Hamburg, northern Germany, on July 7, 2017.Patrick Stollarz | AFP | Getty Images
GUANGZHOU, China — Political tensions between the U.S. and China have thrust technology and supply chains into the spotlight and threaten to fracture the internet.
Nhiều công ty lớn có chức năng quản lý, tư vấn về nội dung cho các YouTuber ở Việt Nam. Đây là đầu mối để các cơ quan hữu trách xử lý các video vi phạm.
Chiều 10/9, Sở Thông tin và Truyền thông tỉnh Bắc Giang ra quyết định xử phạt Nguyễn Văn Hưng, chủ kênh YouTube Hưng Vlog 7,5 triệu đồng vì vi phạm các quy định về trách nhiệm sử dụng dịch vụ mạng xã hội.
Chưa đầy một tháng bị phạt, Hưng Vlog lại tiếp tục đăng video nhảm nhí lên một kênh YouTube khác.
Da Nang has caught the attention of Japanese ICT firms thanks to its favorable investment environment.
Japan is the second largest foreign direct investor in Vietnam with total registered capital of $60 billion. Japanese investors have invested in 4,200 projects, including 700 ICT ones.
Da Nang City
Speaking at an online ceremony on promoting ICT investments from Japan held in late September, Deputy Minister of Information and Communications (MIC) Pham Anh Tuan said Vietnam is ready to receive new Japanese investments by technology firms which will come in the expected investment relocation wave. >
May’s low and July’s high have something in common: They both reflect TSMC’s distinctive role in the global tech economy. Although far from a household name, TSMC controls roughly half of the world’s contract chip manufacturing. Brand-name companies that design their own chips—most notably Apple—rely on TSMC’s world-class production so they don’t have to spend tens of billions to build their own factories. Crack open your iPhone and you’ll find a chip from TSMC. If you could crack open an American guided missile, you’d likely find one there too. Its prowess has elevated TSMC to No. 362 on the Global 500, with $35 billion in revenue. Today it gets 60% of sales from the U.S. and about 20% from mainland China.
The US-China tech innovation race is challenging the laissez-faire economic model. State interventionism, techno-nationalism and US tech funding initiatives are increasing. This paper outlines the implications for markets, academia, research organizations, and governments of the US-China competition to achieve innovation advantage.
A US-China tech innovation race has sparked a paradigm shift in global trade and commerce that is challenging the long-standing primacy of the world’s open trading system.
Current thinking is tilting towards increased state activism and interventionism, not only in the technology landscape but in many of the industries of the future.
Driving this change is techno-nationalism: a mercantilist-like behavior that links tech innovation and enterprise directly to the national security, economic prosperity and social stability of a nation.
In response to decades of Beijing’s innovation-mercantilism, the US has embarked on its own innovation offensive. Washington’s future tech funding initiatives could surpass the scale of the “moonshot” projects last seen during the space race with the former Soviet Union.
Download “Techno-nationalism: The US-China tech innovation race” by Alex Capri
The innovation race involves a broad range of emerging and foundational technologies that will define the industries of the future, including:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning
Quantum computing and information systems
Next generation communication (including 5G and 6G)
Underlying themes: US techno-nationalism and innovation
As Washington and its allies ramp up techno-nationalist initiatives, core themes will drive the paradigm shift.
Public-private partnerships (PPP) – Technology alliances and government-funded initiatives will play an increasingly important role in advancing long-term innovation in the US, the EU and other traditionally open markets.
Avoiding the China innovation model – The US and EU innovation agendas will not seek to emulate China’s centralized, authoritarian system of techno-nationalism, but, rather, to turbo-charge markets and leverage entrepreneurial ecosystems, as well as academic and defense establishments.
Balancing tensions between MNEs, markets and techno-nationalism – Multinational enterprises (MNEs) will remain the primary drivers of R&D and innovation in free markets and play a vital role in PPP initiatives. They will be pulled into the US-China technology war in a variety of ways which will require a careful balancing of market forces, the interests of MNEs and the needs of state actors.
Multilateral technology alliances – US techno-nationalist policy will increasingly align with the security, economic and ideological objectives of the EU and other historic allies. This will produce more cooperation between the US and its partners.
Section I – The US-China innovation race: The role of the state
This section examines trends for public-spending in R&D and innovation and reviews a series of techno-nationalist funding initiatives from the US government.
It analyzes state activism in free markets and why governments are uniquely qualified to promote innovation and “blue-sky” technologies in ways that the private sector cannot.
Finally, Section I spotlights a historic example of techno-nationalism: SEMATECH and the US semiconductor public-private partnership, which led to a technological leapfrog by the US semiconductor industry, past Japan, in the 1990s.
Section II – MNEs, markets and governments: Navigating new complexities
Section II focuses on non-state actors and their increasingly complex role in public-private partnerships. It explores the tensions between open market forces, multinational companies, and techno-nationalist state activism.
To highlight these tensions, the report analyzes Facebook’s “Libra initiative and Beijing’s efforts to reduce dependency on the US dollar via the digital Yuan, and the challenges those create for MNEs. A US semiconductor sector case study illustrates how state activism can have detrimental effects on markets and backfire on the very parties it is looking to protect.
Section II concludes with an analysis of how open-sourced innovation could be a game-changer in the US-China technology war, particularly regarding future 5G wireless competition.
Section III – Academia and techno-nationalism: Open versus closed systems
Universities, research organizations and academia have become hot zones in the US-China innovation race. Human capital development is key to conducting leading-edge R&D and driving innovation.
Section III looks at how US export controls are affecting R&D activities at universities. It highlights the rules-based frameworks that universities must build to handle increasing government funding into academia.
The section showcases China’s Thousand Talents program and highlights its challenges for public-private partnerships involving academia. It also discusses why the US, in particular, should keep its human capital and innovation pipeline open as it pertains to foreign students, fundamental research programs and, ultimately, why an open system (despite China’s exploitation of it) is better than a closed one.
Finally, section III looks at how some inevitable strategic decoupling between Chinese and US entities will result in the ring-fencing of more “sensitive” R&D activities within the US defense establishment.
Listen to a summary of the report in this podcast featuring Alex Capri and Andrew Staples, Director of Research and Outreach.
(Công lý) – Phán quyết của HĐTP đưa ra tại phiên giám đốc thẩm vụ án Hồ Duy Hải vừa qua được đồng đảo người dân đồng tình, ủng hộ. Bên cạnh đó, còn một số ý kiến đã có những bình luận thiếu thiện chí, không đúng với bản chất vụ việc, gây hoang mang dư luận.
Xung quanh vấn đề này, PV Báo điện tử Công lý đã có cuộc trao đổi với Đại tá Nguyễn Minh Tâm, nguyên Giám đốc Trung tâm Thông tin Khoa học và Tư liệu giáo khoa, Học viện chính trị CAND- người đã nghiên cứu rất sâu vụ án ngay từ những ngày đầu xảy ra.