Пособие прошло апробацию в группах магистратур факультета мэо. Contents

Вид материала

Документы

Содержание Speak on one of the following topics for 2 min. Two minutes’ preparation time is allowed. Practical advice Organise your essay properly using paragraphs for main ideas or points Unit four reading 1 According to the writer, the people in the meeting described in the first paragraph are 2 Which phrase, used later in the essay, refers to the behaviour of the people in the meeting? 3 In the third paragraph, the writer makes the point that 4 Which reason does the writer give for not favouring a legal approach to the problem of intellectual property? 5 What does the phrase 'so much guff (paragraph 7) refer to? 6 What main advantage does the writer see in the system of ‘tagging' he proposes? 7 Towards the end of the passage, what does the writer suggest is a concern for employers?

Подобный материал:

• Темы курсовых работ для 1 курса факультета мэо, 981.17kb.
• Темы курсовых работ для 1 курса факультета мэо московский государственный институт, 1015.8kb.
• Практикум по экономическому переводу и развитию навыков устной речи «Брэнд», 635.94kb.
• Программа курса " Деловые культуры в условиях глобализации мэо, 189.11kb.
• Мэо. Мировое хозяйство, 1194.05kb.
• Вопросы для экзамена по мэо для студентов 2-го курса факультета Мировой Экономики., 24.32kb.
• Программа курса экономической теории и планы семинарских занятий для факультета мэо, 985.26kb.
• Учебное пособие Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета экономики и финансов, 2322.15kb.
• Table of contents, 459.31kb.
• Contents panel I, 1232.02kb.

SPEAKING

Speak on one of the following topics for 2 min. Two minutes’ preparation time is allowed.

Advertising • the role of research and development in advertising on the foreign market Management how to motivate employees to be efficient in multinational companies Customer relations the importance of dealing promptly with customer dissatisfaction in international trade

PRACTICAL ADVICE:

• MAKE NOTES OF WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING TO SAY
  

• ARRANGE YOUR ARGUMENTS LOGICALLY
  

Make notes ……………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…

WRITING

THE WESTERN VIEW OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. THE EASTERN VIEW ARGUES THAT THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY OR PEOPLE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.


Write an essay in which you take a position on this debate. Be sure to support your stance with specific examples and logical arguments. Write about 180 words.


REMEMBER:

• ORGANISE YOUR ESSAY PROPERLY USING PARAGRAPHS FOR MAIN IDEAS OR POINTS
  
• WELL-WRITEN PARAGRAPHS SHARE THESE IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS:
  
• a great paragraph has unity. That means it sticks to the subject. It doesn't wander from subject to subject without any apparent purpose. All sentences are related to one single idea.
  
• a great paragraph has coherence. That means the paragraph's ideas are presented in a logical order and are linked together in a way that makes it easy for the reader to follow your train of thought.
  
• a great paragraph has adequate detail. That means it has enough supporting details so your reader can easily understand the paragraph's main idea.
  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………

■

UNIT FOUR

READING

You are going to read an essay on the subject of intellectual property. For questions 1-7 choose the answer (А, В, С or D) which you think fits best according to the text.

The Sound of Silence

Twenty people — specialists, experts, thinkers — sit around a seminar table. They might be discussing education, the stock market or one of a whole range of issues. Although people are speaking, no one is saying anything. At least half of the participants have an original idea at the front of their mind. But they do not share it because it is too valuable. They are afraid that one of the others will steal the idea and use it, publish it or sell it before they do. Their intellectual property is at risk.

Images of the so-called ‘new economy’, that much talked about product of the 'age of information' are of complexity and hubbub. You get the sense that it is a noisy place. In fact, however, such is the fear of being intellectually gazumped that people who you might think of as being in the driving seat of that new economy are becoming rather cagey, and as a result, it echoes to the sound of silence as received wisdoms are recycled.

There has always been a reluctance to share new ideas in professions linked to the media, but it's a phenomenon that seems to be spreading, especially into the world of policy. It is finding its way into government departments and the 'think tanks', those groups of intellectuals and academics whose job it is to inform and inspire government policy. On an individual level, hoarding and hiding make good sense, but collectively it impoverishes conversation — potentially to the detriment of good policymaking.

This new intellectual coyness highlights the peculiar quality of information and ideas in a market economy. The essential problem is this: you cannot know the value of a piece of information, still less an original idea, unless you know what it is. But once gleaned, it cannot be returned to its originator intact. In other words, you cannot feel the quality of an idea before deciding whether to buy it or not. This means that ideas make bad commodities. Pricing, in the usual economic sense, is impossible because the value of the product is not physically captured — at least, not immediately.

This is why intellectual property lawyers are licking their lips, and why one academic has just taken out the first-ever patent on an idea. But legal and contractual approaches to the problem are of limited use. Many of the best ideas come out of a conversation between two


people. Who, then, do they belong to? And the danger of legally based approaches is that they will make us more guarded, not less so.

On the face of it, the argument that we are becoming intellectual misers flies in the face of current developments. Isn't the Internet democratising knowledge? And what about the free software at the heart of cyberspace? Far from living in monastic silence. aren't we being bombarded with ideas and information?

Well, yes. But most of the information we receive is of limited value. How many people who have a truly innovative idea will broadcast it on the web? Some, but not many. With so much guff all over the place, the value of an original idea is all the more worth guarding.

All this means that intellectual generosity is becoming rarer and much more precious. It also elevates the role of trust. If my colleague gives me an idea, and I pass that idea on, either in print or through conversation, it's critical that I 'tag' it as hers, rather than succumbing to the temptation to pass it off as my own. Such a system of tagging would mean that my colleague continues to reap the rewards of her intellectual labour, making her more willing to share her ideas with others in the future, and it would also mean that our conversations would be free of the fear of theft. In short, she will trust me, and vice versa, thus ensuring a free flow of information.

There are issues for employers here, too. When someone's ability to add value rests on their skill at coming up with ideas, how do managers ensure that they are working as hard as they should be? Maybe they are storing up the best stuff for the online consultancy they run from home. In most cases, the desire of workers to be recognised as talented, to win promotion and gain greater financial rewards is sufficient incentive, but managers need to ensure that good ideas are credited properly through tagging, to keep the best minds on board.

So if we want to encourage intellectual generosity, as well as fostering an atmosphere of co-operation rather than distrust, we need to tag ideas to the person they originally came from. So how about it? As John Knell puts it: do you dare to share?