Module 5

Friedman defines “Triple Convergence” as the convergence of all ten previously discussed flatteners all rolled into one around the year 2000. They work in way that creates a new, flatter global playing field. Businesses and individuals adopted new skills and processes to get more out of what they had.
In convergence I, the ten flatteners had to spread out, take root and converge with others to be most effective. In Friedman's example, “Southwest Airlines realized that there were enough PCs around, enough bandwidth, enough software know-how for Southwest to create a work flow system that empowered its customers” (pg 203). You might also simulate this too home banking, where no longer do you need to visit a bank to perform a transaction. Instead, banking is available online, and can be accessed from computers and mobile devices for the same reasons Southwest was able to offer e-tickets to their customers.
Convergence II is the process of habits changing to get the most out of the new technology. Friedman points to electricity and the main frame computers as examples. Productivity did not instantly improve on either front, it took time for habits to change and old technology to wither its way out. This is a good point Friedman makes, as any time new technology comes out, it does not provide instant gratification. Time and habits must change to make the most of it.
Convergence III is the explosion of new players in the playing field. China, India, and the Soviet Union now joined North America, Western Europe and Japan on this playing field. This created new processes and collaboration that has had a great impact on the global economy.
In the story about India and Indiana, who is the exploiter and who is the exploited party? That is a tough question to answer. First off, I believe it was simply political suicide for any politician to even remotely consider the notion of awarding a huge software contract to an agency that completely owes its existence to the very act that created it in the first place. Not only was the State of Indiana and the department it needed the software for adding to their workload by awarding the contract to India based Tata Consultancy Service, it could have minimized its own cost in the size of the project by putting Indiana citizens to work. As I read the chapter, it came as no surprise to me the outrage and political wrangling that followed. If not for the death of the late Governor, he probably would have never seen another term anyway. As stated in the book, it all depends on one's perspective. From the Indian's perspective, they were simply bidding for a contract in which they were in business to perform. If you're an auto mechanic, you give bids to fix vehicle, regardless of whose car it is. This contract was to bring in new opportunities for employment for the India based company, and bring new profits for the company itself. From the perspective of Indiana state, this was only a partial win. Sure, they would have saved millions of tax dollars, but were they helping out the very citizens that put those dollars in the tax bucket, and they were serving the very people who put those state officials in office. I believe in the end, the people of Indiana were being exploited, and the government was not serving the people they were sworn to serve. The decision simply came down to the almighty dollar, and from a business perspective, that is generally what it is about, and most times rightfully so. However, from a government perspective, this can not, and should not, be top priority.
Intellectual property is the property of an individual or company that potentially requires protection for the financial benefit. It becomes important by the fact that as more and more resources become digitized, and shared across the web, ideas and innovations become exploited by others. In becomes an important question as to where the line is drawn, at what point does a an idea or invention become property of an individual, and when is it simply the open source to those who learn about it and exploit it for there own benefit. This brings to mind the story of Facebook. You may have heard about the lawsuit against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg by three of his former Harvard classmates who accused Zuckerberg of stealing their ideas. A fourth student filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claiming he created an online facebook first. This sort of legal rambling will only continue to grow as the line between invention and ownership remains a gray issue.