Although apple has launched its new iPhone 4S, Galaxy has also been a large player in the android market, especially with its Samsung Galaxy S and new Samsung Galaxy S II. I’m not sure whether it is the Galaxy’s larger screen, lighter weight, better price, better user-friendliness or a combination of the two.

To me, this makes Apple seem weak and desperate, but the lawsuits have been ongoing over the last couple of years. At least when Apple slashed their prices to undercut competitors, the competition provided benefits to the consumer. But by suing Samsung Apple is solely looking to put put a dent in their business and customer basis.    bunch that makes it so popular but regardless, the Samsung Galaxy series has sold more than 30 million so far. While this is not as much as apple’s iPhone’s, it does pose a large threat to Apple, who has been aware of this fact for quite some time. So what does Apple do? One of their favourite tricks, right up there with undercutting competitor prices to put them out of business: sue them for copyright infringement.

When patents were first invented their goal was to promote research and developments, specifically technological advancements. By granting the inventor sole rights to the development, others would not be able to simply copy it, sell it and make the same amount of profit as the inventor (if not more, due to the money it took to invent it).

However, I do not see it this way. First of all, if the inventor of a good were to obtain a patent for 15 years, it is quite possible that there would be other people who would have invented the same thing sometime before then. Patents would be unfair for them.

Secondly, I believe that the natural economic model is the one that maximizes economic surplus. Patents *this blog post is copyrighted by        are by no means a natural commodity. Not only are Robinson.Inc                                      they distributed by the government but they cause                                                                  monopolies that dominate the market. Competition is healthy and also necessary. With a patent in place, the company that owns it has no incentive to improve the development. Why would they? They control the entire market for that good so putting lots of money in to improve it would make little sense. The demand would be almost unchanged for the good. So, in fact, patents hinder developments.

Offshore banking is completely legal and not used by spies, people involved in illegal operations or rich men. Although the last one might be caused by the use of offshore banking. Offshore banking can be used by almost anyone who wants to reap its benefits. For instance, the bank could offer services not offered by banks in the domestic country. One of the most common reasons for using offshore banking is to gain tax and loan advantages. Oftentimes offshore banks do not tax the interest you receive. The interest one receives from offshore banks is generally much larger than in their domestic country since offshore banks operate at low costs. However, it is both tempting and illegal to evade taxes on income statements by hiding one’s income that comes from offshore bank interest.

Offshore banking is not all glamour. They are generally riskier. By that I mean that they are less stable than domestic banks. There are also fixed costs in establishing and maintaining the account. This is why the typical person who uses offshore banks is wealthy. However, overall the financial benefit almost always outweighs the cost.

So the question now is: is offshore banking worth it? Or rather: when is offshore banking worth it? Well, if you are someone who has money, wants to make money, and knows their way around finance and banking then offshore banking may be right for you. Still, there must be extensive research done to determine an offshore bank accounts laws it must comply with and to determine the offshore bank’s policies and procedures.

With the advancement of the internet, it is becoming easier and easier to gain access to knowledge. Khanacademy and MIT open courseware are both examples of this. Within the next few decades, a college degree will become less and less valuable. Eventually one will not have to have a college education to gain extensive knowledge in an area. The only requirement for degrees will be tests of one’s knowledge in the subject area. However, not all areas of education will evolve like this. Schools such as business schools, graduate schools and trade schools are likely to remain in tact. This is due to the fact that these faculties require hands on training. For instance, a business school does not simply give the student applicable knowledge when it comes to accounting or finance. It builds public speaking and persuasive skills. Skills that can only be required by practice and not just memorizing a formula. Therefore, it is likely that the While there is likely to be a fee for the tests, education will be much easier to obtain and will not cost a small fortune.

MIT open courseware: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Khanacademy: https://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy?blend=1&ob=4

Social responsibility has little to no place in businesses. Donating a percentage or fixed amount of profits to a charity or foundation is not in the interest of investors who only wish to receive dividends. Nor is it actually in the interest of the consumer. This is true because any logical consumer would know that by donating some of its profits, the company has either raised the price to compensate or that they could be paying a cheaper price if they did not have to donate. Either way, they know they could be paying a cheaper price.

Even if we are under the assumption that everyone likes to donate, it is still not in the interest of the consumer to buy the product because of its positive societal impact. This is true because it is unlikely that the specific foundation or charity is the customer’s number one choice for donating to. So, the customer would be happier if they payed a cheaper price and donated the difference in price to their charity of choice. From this, it is clear that if a business wants to be socially responsible they must do one of two things. Either ensure that the positive public relations and any other benefits will outweigh the cost from loss of sales or give the customers the option to donate the difference in price to the charity of their choosing. For the second option the business would have to define what they consider to be a legitimate charity.

Everyone has heard of window shopping: shoppers that simply scan clothing to see what catches their interest but not buying it. Maybe one would buy it at a later date from that store or maybe just find another store that sells it cheap and buy it from there. Nothing unorthodox there, according to stores. However, what about those who buy the clothing and return it? People do this for several reasons. Probably the most common is because the customer does not like it. Some people even go out to buy expensive clothing to wear for a few important nights in order to look good, then go back and return it. Others buy items or try them on and then return it and purchase the item from another retailer or directly from the supplier for a much cheaper price (up to 90% discounts). It is currently common for 1/3 of clothing stores items to be returned for a full refund. Now this on the other hand presents a large problem for some retail stores.

I believe that this is just the evolution of shopping. Blockbuster went out of business because everyone began to order movies on demand or watch them on the internet. Eventually the clothing industry will be almost purely an online market. But for now, stores who have been hit should change their policies, especially their policies on returns. For instance, a store could have no deadline for an item to be returned by but they could not give full refunds. The difference between the full refund and the actual refund would be dependent on how late the product is returned, so the later the product is returned, the less of a refund the shopper obtains.

Marketing is at an all time low. That is not to say that marketing is unsuccessful in any definition of the term, but rather that some of its practices are as unethical as ever. One known ploy is negative option marketing. This legal (in most of the world) scam (yes, I’m aware of the oxymoron) is a practice where extra services or goods are provided for the client for a limited time with no extra charge. The providers deceit lies in attempting to slide by you the fact that failing to cancel your extra services by the end of the trial period will be at your (and your bank account’s) expense. This “strategy” has been and is used by numerous magazines and cable providers. One of the most famous of the group is Rogers Cable, who, in 1995, attempted to get customers to purchase specialty channels unless the customer actively opted out of it. Thankfully, There was a large kerfuffle made over this and Rogers eventually backed down, but only after they received over a hundred thousand calls with regards to the billing and lost thousands of clients.

In short, it is simply unfair and unethical for the client to be forced to take action to prevent paying for a service that they in no way wanted or asked for. Imagine if all of the services and goods you subscribe to used negative option billing, one would be forced to spend hours upon hours canceling all the extra “free” stuff. Yet, for magazines, black option billing is done all the time because it is thought to be standard procedure. Thankfully, in British Columbia as well as Ontario, this type of marketing is illegal. Simply put, although it can be called negative option marketing, it is not a (good) marketing at all and is essentially counterproductive.