Miseducation of Filipino Essay Example for Free

Miseducation of Filipino Essay Prof. Renato Constantino, in his essay entitled â€Å"The Miseducation of the Filipino†, writes about the coming about of the miseducation and the consequences of such action in the lives of the Filipinos, then, now, and perhaps the future. Promoting and imposing the â€Å"unFilipino† identity in Filipinos was the miseducation that Americans pursued during the time when they â€Å"posed† as a benevolent ally to the Philippines, and they proved victorious indeed because they had completely subjugated the Filipinos, both in minds and in hearts. Education is a very vital factor for one’s development. And as we all know, through education, one’s mind is molded because of the teachings, ideas, and values taught to him. Due to this fact, it’s only either of the two that will happen: the person will become productive provided that he was taught with the right things, or, the person will become otherwise since he acquired negative things. Personally, I learned and realized many things about the history and relationship between the Americans and the Filipinos upon reading this paper. It is quite intriguing what the main reasons really were the Americans in taking power over the Philippines. Was it for the good of the Filipinos or the Americans’ good? Whatever it was, they succeeded in almost every aspect of conquering the land because they knew the most effective way to subjugate Filipinos minds: by controlling our education. They created a new generation of good colonials, the â€Å"unFilipino† Filipinos. The indigenous ways of life of Filipinos had been changed to the American way of life. That was ridiculous because certainly, America and Philippines vastly differed from each other in so many ways, and therefore, their ways of life based on their differing needs should be entirely different. But the Americans insisted on creating a â€Å"carbon-copy† of themselves in Filipinos through the imposition of their language in their education. I went to elementary and high school in the Philippines, and I know for a fact they used both English and Tagalog as the media of teaching. In the long run, I think this resulted in both positive and negative ways — positively, because I was uprooted to the U. S. and I was able to use the â€Å"smattering† English I know to communicate with others, and negatively, because as I have just realized, I feel the â€Å"impediment† in my thought process because I cannot think consistently in one language. All in all, I liked this piece because it reiterates the importance of education to not only produce literate people but also to produce people who would use that education to better their nation.

Motorcycle and Car Essay Example for Free

Motorcycle and Car Essay Everyone knows that in a crash motorcycle riders usually come off worse than car drivers. Riders avoid some problems, like being trapped in a burning or sinking car, but in general an accident that dents a car can put a motorcyclist in hospital. However motorcycle fear is often based on rumor or reports, not actual experience. It is guilt by association. Guilt by Association A friend once told me she didn’t like motorcycles as her brother was killed on one. When I asked how, she said he stopped at an accident, got off his bike, and was struck by a car as he walked over to help! I wondered, â€Å"Well, couldn’t the same have happened if he had been in a car? † This guilt by association ignores the fact that lots of people who drive cars also die. It is a fixed attitude, that just associates motorcycles with danger. Like many other fixed attitudes, it is often reinforced by the media. It is hard to see the reality amidst the smoke of false fears, worries and imaginations. A motorcycle is safer than a car if it is less likely to have an accident in the first place But safety also depends on how likely you are to have an accident in the first place. I find motorcycles safer because one can better avoid accidents on them. In a car, I feel safe because I have protection, but on a motorcycle I feel safer because I have more options. A motorcycle is safer than a car if it is less likely to have an accident in the first place. That the careless can kill themselves more easily on a motorcycle is not denied. However what about competent riders? Competent riders are less likely to haveaccidents because they: 1. See more 2. Evade better 3. Attend more 4. Assume less Do motorcycles cause deaths? The death rate for riders is higher than for drivers, but perhaps that is because so many motorcycle riders are young men, who are still developing risk awareness. It seems a hard thing to say, but were they not on motor-cycles, perhaps they just would kill themselves in some other activity, as young men and risk go together. But here is a puzzle. If the risk of riding is so high, how can some people ride motorcycles every day for decades? Even with a tiny risk, sooner or later, their number should come up. Yet such people exist, and I know, because I am one. If the risk of riding is so high, how can some people ride for thirty years and live? Safe riders prove that safety is no accident, and that motorcycle riding is not inevitably dangerous. See more A rider’s field of vision is further and wider than a car’s A rider is usually higher than a car driver, and so has a better view. A better view means you see danger earlier, and can avoid it better. Riders have no car body around them to create vision blind sports. Just turning their head gives a clear all round view. A bike can also move left or right in the lane for a better view, if a truck blocks your vision. A car driver in contrast must remain on the steering wheel side. A motorcycle rider’s field of vision is further and wider than that of a car. When I drive a car, I feel I have a much more constricted field of view. The ability to see more lets you avoid more. If a person in a car three cars ahead stops suddenly, as a rider, I see it earlier, and have more time to make adjustments, to avoid a crash. If seeing danger first means avoiding it better, a motorcycle is safer. Evade better A motor-cycle has evasion options not available to a car A motorcycle is smaller than a car, and so less of a target to be hit. Being smaller, it also has more places to go safely. If the car ahead stops suddenly, the car behind must hit it. Highway pile-ups occur because cars in a lane have nowhere to go in sudden stop. However a bike can swerve to the side, or fit between two cars on a many lane highway. It can pull onto the safety shoulder if necessary. A motor-cycle has evasion options not available to a car. It can accelerate better out of a trouble situation. In nearly every situation, a motorcycle has more evasive choices, because it is smaller and more mobile. In terms of accident evasion, bikes are safer. Attend more When the body is right there, the brain tends to be right there with it There is something about traveling at high speed a few feet above hard ground that gets your attention. When the body is right there, the brain tends to be right there with it. By comparison, a driver is separated from the world by the car body, air-conditioning and comfort. Drivers are distracted from the road by:   Coffee and food   Talking on cell-phones   Listening to the radio   Talking to passengers   Adjusting seats or windows   Disciplining children   Adjusting make-up   Shaving Inattention is the main cause of road accidents Perhaps shaving is uncommon, but the others happen all the time. Studies show that inattention is the main cause of road accidents. You only have so much attention. Attending to one thing degrades your attention to another. Distractions reduce your attention to the road, which leads to accidents. Cars have many distractions, but on a motorcycle, it is just you and the road. Motorcycles are safer because they increase attention and reduce distractions. Driven to distraction One has visions of some driver talking on a cell-phone, while listening to and adjusting the radio, turning to look back at a child, with a cup of coffee in the other hand. My personal dislike is soccer Mums in big SUVs trying ineffectively to discipline rowdy children in the back seat while driving. Kids are the most effective distraction machines every invented. Its much better to stop the car and deal with them. Assume less Life insurance should be called what it really is death insurance People driving large vehicles with life insurance think they are â€Å"safe†. Life insurance should be called what it really is death insurance. Then people would understand it better. Money cant replace life. You dont really have insurance (in the sense of replacing what you had). Car safety features cannot avoid the nut behind the wheel problem. Safer cars are no use if people are more careless. If drivers with anti-skid brakes just drive faster in the rain, what is the safety benefit? The accident rate depends as much on attitude as on mechanical safety features. Motorcycles create a better attitude, because on a motorcycle, you know you are vulnerable. No matter how big the motorcycle, what happens is likely to happen to you, personally. Motorcycle riders assume less, which makes a motorcycle safer than a car. The Anti-SUV mentality There are two approaches to avoiding accidents: The SUV mentality: Have accidents, but avoid the results.   The Anti-SUV mentality: Avoid accidents entirely For every big vehicle, there is a bigger one America’s current approach is the first buy cars so big you are unhurt in a crash. But for every big vehicle, there is a bigger one. If your Mercedes meets a truck/trailer combine, you will be crushed whatever your safety rating. Metal is not a cure for carelessness. While SUVs seem safe, studies show they tip easily, maneuver poorly, waste petrol, hog the road, make bigger targets, and overfill parking spaces. If we all drove in tanks, would the roads be safer? Whatever the metal around you, a bigger vehicle can always penetrate it. The SUV mentality tries to put a metal barrier between you and the world, so others (not you) pay the price of accidents. The result is a vehicle arms race, where everyone drives bigger cars. That big vehicles also cause more damage is ignored. If we all drove around in main battle tanks, would the roads be safer? SUV drivers would insulate themselves from the world, but that is not a good way to go. The goal is to avoid accidents, not to â€Å"safely† have them Motorcycle riders follow the Anti-SUV mentality, which is to avoid accidents entirely. The â€Å"strength† of a motorcycle is its flexibility, not its invulnerability. The goal is to avoid accidents, not to â€Å"safely† have them. I prefer the attentive but unprotected motorcycle rider any day over a careless SUV driver. The anti-SUV mentality is not only about saving petrol, it is also an attitude to life, a willingness to be responsible for your own acts. Bigger is better? Americans have a fixed idea that to ride a motorcycle you have to be big, strong and tough. Yet in countries like Italy, Malaysia or New Zealand, everyone rides: young and old, men and women. Young women ride motorcycles and scooters all around Rome. In Kuala Lumpur, everyone rides motorcycles everywhere. These countries dont have the same fear mentality regarding motorcycles as America does, and they dont see size as the solution. On a motorcycle, size doesnt matter. What matters is your ability to see risk.   Conclusion Riding a motorcycle is safer than driving a car because riders see more, evade better, are more attentive, and assume less. The rider has higher stakes, but if they ride safely, are less likely to have an accident in the first place. Building character I knew a good father who suggested his son ride a motorcycle not a car, as â€Å"Then your carelessness will kill yourself, not innocent people. † Interestingly, the son turned into a great guy. Did the father care about his son? Of course. He cared that he would be a good person, who accounts for his acts. Most advice is about looking after the body. In this case, the father cared for his son’s character.  © Brian Whitworth, 2004, 2005.

Analysis of Singapores Intellectual Property Laws

Analysis of Singapores Intellectual Property Laws The Issue of Intellectual Property Protection From the previous assignment, we have look into the cases involving McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise PTE LTD, we have also introduced the basic intellectual property laws and how they are inter-related to one another. In this assignment, we will analyze the Singapore Laws that is related to the cases involved, and then we will provide recommendation to give our client a better idea of the rules and regulations they should abide. Summary of the cases McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise PTE LTD, core-operating unit of Food Empire Holding Limited, are involved in two law cases during the period of 2003 to 2007. McDonald lost the first case in 2003 as the mark used by Future Enterprise is visually different from McDonald Corporation. Furthermore, Future Enterprise has its eagle device while McDonald Corporation has its golden archer. Therefore, the color scheme, font, and typeface on the mark of the Future Enterprise is very different from the one used by McDonald Corporation. McDonald Corporation sued Future Enterprise again in 2005 for amending the logo of MacCoffee by dropping the eagle device. McDonald Corporation has won this court case against Future Enterprise as there is a higher chance of confusion that will occur in the public and both products names are relate to coffee beverages. Both cases mentioned above are inter-related with each other as both cases involved the Intellectual Property Law of Trade Mark Act (TMA) where s15 of the TMA is highly emphasized. In the midst of both cases, both McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise have made various appeals to the cases and this shows that both companies have the great intention and desires to protect their own trademarks. The connection between both cases shows that McDonald wanted to monopolize their trademark as far as food and beverages were concerned. Future Enterprise which also wanted to conserve its right of the prefix Mac in the same industry tried its best to maintain its position. Description and Analyze of the Singapore Law Involved In the case study, the Singapore Law that involved is mainly the Trademark and Passing off laws under the Intellectual Property Law. The laws involved can be classified into two main categories of Common Law and Statute Law. Statute Law Involved: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 1 for definition of Statute Law) The Statute Laws that are applicable in the following case are Section 12(1), Section 15 and Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 Rev Ed). Below are the descriptions of the different section of laws involved and the reasons why it is involved: Section 12(1): Any person claiming to be the proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used by him who is desirous of registering it shall apply in writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registration in Part A or B of the register. Reason: McDonald Corporation claims that Future Enterprises marks were not made in good faith as it has adopted a naming convention of using the prefix Mac follows by a food or beverage descriptive. This is similar to McDonald Corporation naming convention for their products, which McDonald Corporation feels that Future Enterprise is making use of similar naming convention to promote their products. Section 15: It shall not be lawful to register as a trade mark or part of a trade mark any matter the use of which would, by reason of its being likely to deceive or cause confusion or otherwise, be disentitled to protection in a court of justice, or would be contrary to law or morality, or any scandalous design. Reason: McDonald Corporation claims that the naming convention and the using of the prefix Mac adopted by Future Enterprise would likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public. McDonald Corporation feels that the consumers may be misled thinking that Future Enterprises mark is a series of mark belonging to McDonald Corporation. Section 23(1): Except as provided by section 25, no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or description of goods that is identical with or nearly resembles a trade mark belonging to a different proprietor and already on the register in respect of: The same goods; The same description of goods; or Services or a description of services, which are associated with those goods or goods of that description. Reason: McDonald Corporation claims that Future Enterprises mark is identical and has a near resembled to their trademark. McDonald Corporation also claims that Future Enterprises marks are associated with their goods in respect of restaurant and catering services as McDonald Corporation regards Food and Beverages is associated with hotel or restaurant service. Common Law Involved: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 2 for definition of Common Law) There are quite a number of Common Laws involved in our case study, we will look into the major cases that are referred to in corresponding to the different sections of Trade Mark Act that are involved. (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 3 for other cases referred (Common Laws)) Case refers corresponding to Section 12: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 4 for the summary of the case) Tiffany Co v Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SA [1999] 3 SLR 147 (folld) McDonald Corporation referred to the mentioned case as a support to enhance the claim that Future Enterprises mark is not made in good faith, claiming that Future Enterprise was making use of the prefix Mac to promote their products to the public through the association to McDonald Corporation. Case refers corresponding to Section 15: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 4 for the summary of the case) McDonalds Corporation v McBagels Inc (85 Civ 7868, 10 December 1986) (refd) McDonald Corporation referred to the mentioned case as a support to enhance the claim that using the prefix Mc or Mac as a naming convention will result confusion in the public to think that Future Enterprises products that has the name mark of Mac is associated to McDonald. Dispute and Resolution Mechanism: Singapore has its own hierarchy of Courts when dealing with Criminal and Civil Law. (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 5 for the diagram of Singapores hierarchy of Courts) Singapore Law system is very strict and serious to trade mark offences, it has imposed a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years for criminal liability in infringement act. For civil infringement, the court can award statutory damages of up to $1million. Usually, the High Court in the hierarchy of Singapore Court system will deal with intellectual property disputes and infringement. Referring to the Case Study, the case is dealt in High Court but due to appeal, the case is later brought into the Court of Appeal in resolving the case. Laws and their relevancy to the case Relevant laws and their application: Under s12(1) of the Act that the respondents claim to proprietorship of the three marks was not made in good faith as it had copied the common distinctive prefix of the appellants family of marks, namely, Mc; Under s15 of the Act that the registration of the three marks would likely deceive or cause confusion to the public; and Under s23(1) of the Act that the application marks were identical with or nearly resembled the trade marks belonging to the appellant. Fairness and unfairness: First case: (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 1 for Scenario of first case) It was decided in the first case that McDonald was unable to stop Future Enterprise form producing their products due to infringements of trademarks. I believed that the decision was fair as many evidence was provided to prove that Future Enterprise had made an effort to make their products distinctive to prevent confusion to the public. The evidence, from the article says that the products Future Enterprise produced were packaged with an eagle logo and it was sold mainly at NTUC FairPrice and Mustafa supermarkets in Singapore. This evidence enhances the point that Future Enterprise and McDonald were selling products targeted at different audiences from different markets. Furthermore, the article also showed that Future Enterprise has had its own product logos and color schemes different from McDonald. This point further showed that the marks were different whether it is in the aspects of appearance, sound or concept. Thus, it proves that customers/consumers had more ways to differentiate between the products of these 2 organizations, which further enhance the fairness of the judgment for this case. Last but not least, McDonald further protested that it had spent millions of dollars to create goodwill for it Mc series of marks, but evidence showed from the article says that Future Enterprise had also spent substantial time and resources in order to gain recognition from global market leaders. Therefore, it is fair to say that Future Enterprise did not cause loss whether in goodwill or financial damages, thus I think it is fair to say that fair judgment were made in this case. Second case: (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 2 for Scenario of second case) In the second case, Future Enterprise was brought up to court by McDonald again as they wanted to update their product design by dropping off their eagle logo. McDonald felt that their marks and naming conventions would be relatively similar which could cause confusion if Future Enterprise were to take out the distinctive eagle logo. Evidence from the article says that the two names sounded and looked too alike, and a substantial amount of average Singaporean would be confused with these two products. And also, the concept too was proved to be similar whether it is the products they are selling or the locations that they are selling the products. But, in our own opinion, we felt that there was unfairness presented in this judgment. In the first Court case between McDonald and Future Enterprise, it was judged that there were too many differences between McDonald and Future Enterprise whether it is in their logo, the products they sells or the audience they targeted. Thus, MacCoffee was able to be registered as a trademark and McDonalds appeal were dismissed. Yet, in the second court case, Future Enterprise loses the chance for its MacCoffee to be registered as a trademark name as they decided to drop their distinctive eagle logo. The first case stated that there were unanimous decisions in believing that products from Future Enterprise were not similar, whether in visual, sounds or concept, in comparison with products from McDonald. And also, evidence from the first case stated that the audience they targeted was remarkably different and the products they sold were also different. The judgment of the second case said that their marks were too similar and it would cause confusion after they drop the eagle logo. The appeals were dismissed with $10,000 payment made from Future Enterprise to McDonald. We felt that this judgment were unfair as there were contradictions which existed within this two cases. The products they sold were relatively different, ready-to-drink beverages from McCafe, and 3-in-1 coffee mix from MacCoffee. This presented a huge contrast between the products sold by the 2 organizations. Also, since it was decided in the first court case that the logos, type font, color schemes and targeted audiences were different for products of this 2 organizations, it should be brought up in the second case too in order to ensure fairness in this case. Thus they should take it into consideration of all these differences in the second court case rather than just concentrating on the similarities caused by the removed logos. Steps to further protect intellectual property rights For McDonald Corporation: Increase the monopolization of the prefix Mc into other service area that their business might want to expand into or have influence on. This is because the use of Mc is only subjected to McDonald in hotel and restaurant service and they might consider the use of this prefix into other service area thus, McDonald can maintain the rights of this prefix in other areas and future companies wont make use of the prefix in the same service area. For Food Empire Holdings: Food Empire Holdings could distinguish itself to McDonalds on the MacCoffee and McCafe by using back their earlier registered mark which appears below an eagle device, on its coffee products. This eagle device can play a part in determining whether the application mark is the same as McDonalds. (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 1 for the picture of Food Empire packaging) Recommendation As a consultant engaged by a big advertising company Do-It-Right Limited, we are responsible to report on the state of intellectual property protection in Singapore and to generally advise them whether there is an inherent and prevailing culture that respects other persons intellectual property rights. Thus, to start with it, we will recommend Do-It-Right Limited Company to advice their multinational clients to understand their own country intellectual property laws and the procedures of registering the trademark. In Singapore Intellectual Property Law, it is categorized into 6 main areas of: Copyright and Neighboring Rights, Industrial Designs, Patents, Confidential Information/Trade Secrets, Trade Marks and Passing Off. These are the 6 main areas under that Intellectual Property Law where the client ought to have a general knowledge of as understanding the laws in each area will be able to help clients to know the ways or methods to safeguard their intellectual properties by knowing which the areas of laws they should look into. To further protect clients intellectual property rights, it is a best advice for client to register their product. For Example: If an organization know that their property or design can be register under the Trademark protection, it is best to register in order to be under law of protection instead of limited protection. This is to ensure when an issue arise of a rival company copying the organization product or design. Organization in this case can use passing off law to protect their rights but this will result them to have limit law of protection if they fail to register their product design. Moreover, Trademark Law offer a great degree of protection comparing to Passing Off Law as Passing off Law require the breaching of Goodwill, Misrepresentations and Damage in order for the Law to take into consideration or effect. Thus in conclusion, it is important for Client to register their product or design under the Intellectual Property Law of protection to have more coverage of protection Lastly, we will also advice them to research on their competitors logo and name to avoid any misinterpretation and misunderstand of their own logo and name to their competitors. It is strongly recommended to use a unique and distinct design for their logo and name, which will lessen the chances of their competitors imitating their name and logo. Conclusion Through our case study on Mc Donald Corporation and Future Enterprise, we have a deep understanding about Intellectual Property Law in Singapore and how it can truly save guard our own personal property. We are also able to analyze the cases and discuss whether the Singapore Courts had made a right judgment. We had gained knowledge of Singapore Courts dealing with cases that involved the Intellectual Property Rights and know the importance of Intellectual Property that under the coverage of law to protect the important asset of an organization. References 1McDonalds Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd 2Food Empire Holdings Ltd 3 McDonalds Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Welcome to McDonalds 5 McDonalds Singapore 6 Singapore Intellectual Property Law#section5 7 Trademark Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 8 Passing off Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 9 McDonalds Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd 10 Rules of Court Appendices Extra Information Section A: A: 1 Statute Law Statue Law is written law that is created by governing authority like the parliament in the form of legislation to state out the civil order of the country and to implement and clarify the policies and operations of the government. Statute Law is also the law that state the consequences or punishments for committing a certain criminal or civil crime such as the Trademark Act or Passing off Act; new law can be introduced and existing law can be taken away in order to accommodate to the nation. A: 2 Common Law Common Law is unstated or unwritten law that is created by judges through court decisions. The decisions made by the judges on current case will depend on the decisions made in similar previous cases that took place. In other word, similar infringements and disputes, that have taken place in previous cases, will result the current case to follow the decisions and reasoning that being used. Common Law system is complicated, as the de cisions made in previous cases will affect the law in future cases and is totally distinguish from Statute Law. Moreover, the decisions made are bounded within a limited given jurisdiction. E.g. Decisions made in higher court such as Court of Appeal will affect the decisions in lower court. A: 3 Case(s) referred to (Common Law): Australian Woollen Mills Limited v F S Walton and Company Limited [1937] 58 CLR 641 (refd) Auvi Pte Ltd v Seah Siew Tee [1992] 1 SLR 639 (folld) Bali Trade Mark [1969] RPC 472 (refd) Beck Koller Company (England) Limited, In the Matter of an Application by [1947] 64 RPC 76 (fold) Brown Shoe Company Inc, Application by [1959] RPC 29 (folld) Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd [1994] 120 ALR 495 (folld) Compatibility Research Ltd v Computer Psyche Company Ltd [1967] FSR 63 (refd) Future enterprise Pte Ltd v Tong Seng Produce Pte Ltd [1998] 1 SLR 1012 (refd) Genette Trade Mark [1968] RPC 148 (folld) Harrods Limited v Harrodian School Limited [1996] RPC 697 (refd) Karu Pty Ltd v Jose [1994] 30 IPR 407 (folld) Kellogg Co v Pacific Food Products Sdn Bhd [1999] 2 SLR 651 (folld) Lever Brothers Ltd v Bedingfield [1899] 16 RPC 3 (folld) Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR 766 (folld) McDonalds Corporation v McBagels Inc (85 Civ 7868, 10 December 1986) (refd) McIndians, In the matter of an application to register the mark (UK Patent Office 16 August 1996)(refd) McMint, Opposition by McDonalds Corporation to the registration of the trademark (Australian Trade Mark Office, 7 November 1997) (folld) McSalad and McFresh, Opposition by McDonalds Corporation to the registration of the trademark (Australian Trade Mark Office, 1 May 2000) (not folld) McVeg, Opposition by McDonalds Corporation to the registration of the trademark (Australian Trade Mark Office, 10 November 1997) (folld) PB Foods Ltd v Malanda DairyFoods Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 47 (distd) Pianotist Company, In the Matter of an Application by (1906) 23 RPC 774 (folld) SEMIGRES Trade Mark [1979] RPC 330 (folld) Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 (folld) Shell Co of Australian Ltd v Rohm Haas Co (1949) 78 CLR 601 (refd) Smith, Hayden Coy Ld, In the Matter of an Application by (1946) 63 RPC 97 (refd) Soldan Holding + Bonbonspezialitaeten GmbH, Re Application by (Singapore Trade Marks Registry, 20 July 2001) (refd) Sports Cafà © Ltd b Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 42 IPR 552 (folld) Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd v Unico Trading Pte Ltd [2000] 3 SLR 145 (folld) Tiffany Co v Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SA [1999] 3 SLR 147 (folld) UNIMAX Trade Mark [1979] RPC 469 (folld) Vitamins Lds Application, In the Matter of [1956] RPC 1 (folld) Wagamama Ltd v City Center Restaurants plc [1995] FSR 713 (refd) Yuen Yu Kwan Frank v McDonalds Corporation [2001] WL 1422899 (refd) A:4 Summary of cases for Common Laws Summary of Case refers corresponding to Section 12: Tiffany Co opposed the registration of the mark Tiffany by Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SA on cigarettes though; Tiffany Co has no monopoly in cigarettes industries. This may results in confusion as the entire word mark Tiffany was being copied over and the public might think that the cigarettes sold is produced or has connection to Tiffany Co upon seeing the Tiffany band of cigarettes. Summary of Case refers corresponding to Section 15: McDonald Corporation objected the use of McBagel in bagel bakery restaurant, as it would create confusion in public that people might think that McBagel is somehow associated with McDonald Corporation. Moreover, a survey was conducted and numerous people believed that McBagel was associated to McDonald Corporation due to the use of the prefix Mc. A.5 Diagram of Singapores hierarchy of Courts Section B: B: 1 Scenario of first case: McDonald had wanted to stop listed Future Enterprises from distributing products named MacNoodles, MacTea and MacChocolate. However, the court of appeal decided in a unanimous decision that the three trademarks were not deceptively similar to McDonalds Mac or Mc prefix. Thus in this case, the laws of protecting trademarks did not help McDonald to stop Future Enterprise from distributing their products, and also Future Enterprise were able to win this case as they did not breach the law of passing off. B: 2 Scenario of Second case: The dispute continues as Future Enterprise, a subsidiary and core unit of listed Food Empire Holding decided to updates it product design, MacCoffee to drop its original eagle design. McDonald objected as the similarity now existed when Future Enterprise decides to take out its distinct eagle design. After objection arose, Future Enterprise appealed for the MacCoffee brand to be registered as trademark, which in the end the appeal was dismissed. The laws of protecting trademark in this case were being carried out. MacCoffee were not distinct enough to be registered as a trademark, thus the appeal was dismissed. Also, after removing the eagle design, it was judged that goodwill was breach in terms of causing confusion to the public with similar products. Thus McDonald had successfully won this case with the appeal and Future Enterprise appeals were all dismissed and they were to pay a sum of $10,000 to McDonald to cover their loss. Section C: C: 1 Pictures of Food Empire MacCoffe packaging Old Packaging New Packaging Schedule of Meeting Date Discussion 28th May 2008 Analyze the cases Facts Inter-relationship Tasks allocated to each of the members 30th May 2008 Discuss the research done Singapore Laws (Statute Law Common Law) Singapore Courts Intellectual Property Rights Started the report writing 5th June 2008 Continuation of the report Modification of report Error Checking Rephrasing 9th June 2008 Finalization of the report Work Plan 3.1 Description of Assignment The objective for this final report gives us more understanding of the Singapore Laws that can be applied to these two cases. We are able to apply our basic knowledge learned in the lecture to discuss whether the cases had been judge fairly. 3.2 Team Members Nur Afidah Binte Afandi, Mark Heng Kok Hoong, Teo Lay Hoon, Goh Kok Jui Kelvin, Chai Guo Wei Problems encountered and Solutions 4.1 Problem: Time Consume Solution: Planning out the schedule what we should do first and what should we do next helps to cut down the time wastage. Analysis of Singapores Intellectual Property Laws Analysis of Singapores Intellectual Property Laws The Issue of Intellectual Property Protection From the previous assignment, we have look into the cases involving McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise PTE LTD, we have also introduced the basic intellectual property laws and how they are inter-related to one another. In this assignment, we will analyze the Singapore Laws that is related to the cases involved, and then we will provide recommendation to give our client a better idea of the rules and regulations they should abide. Summary of the cases McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise PTE LTD, core-operating unit of Food Empire Holding Limited, are involved in two law cases during the period of 2003 to 2007. McDonald lost the first case in 2003 as the mark used by Future Enterprise is visually different from McDonald Corporation. Furthermore, Future Enterprise has its eagle device while McDonald Corporation has its golden archer. Therefore, the color scheme, font, and typeface on the mark of the Future Enterprise is very different from the one used by McDonald Corporation. McDonald Corporation sued Future Enterprise again in 2005 for amending the logo of MacCoffee by dropping the eagle device. McDonald Corporation has won this court case against Future Enterprise as there is a higher chance of confusion that will occur in the public and both products names are relate to coffee beverages. Both cases mentioned above are inter-related with each other as both cases involved the Intellectual Property Law of Trade Mark Act (TMA) where s15 of the TMA is highly emphasized. In the midst of both cases, both McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise have made various appeals to the cases and this shows that both companies have the great intention and desires to protect their own trademarks. The connection between both cases shows that McDonald wanted to monopolize their trademark as far as food and beverages were concerned. Future Enterprise which also wanted to conserve its right of the prefix Mac in the same industry tried its best to maintain its position. Description and Analyze of the Singapore Law Involved In the case study, the Singapore Law that involved is mainly the Trademark and Passing off laws under the Intellectual Property Law. The laws involved can be classified into two main categories of Common Law and Statute Law. Statute Law Involved: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 1 for definition of Statute Law) The Statute Laws that are applicable in the following case are Section 12(1), Section 15 and Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 Rev Ed). Below are the descriptions of the different section of laws involved and the reasons why it is involved: Section 12(1): Any person claiming to be the proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used by him who is desirous of registering it shall apply in writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registration in Part A or B of the register. Reason: McDonald Corporation claims that Future Enterprises marks were not made in good faith as it has adopted a naming convention of using the prefix Mac follows by a food or beverage descriptive. This is similar to McDonald Corporation naming convention for their products, which McDonald Corporation feels that Future Enterprise is making use of similar naming convention to promote their products. Section 15: It shall not be lawful to register as a trade mark or part of a trade mark any matter the use of which would, by reason of its being likely to deceive or cause confusion or otherwise, be disentitled to protection in a court of justice, or would be contrary to law or morality, or any scandalous design. Reason: McDonald Corporation claims that the naming convention and the using of the prefix Mac adopted by Future Enterprise would likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public. McDonald Corporation feels that the consumers may be misled thinking that Future Enterprises mark is a series of mark belonging to McDonald Corporation. Section 23(1): Except as provided by section 25, no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or description of goods that is identical with or nearly resembles a trade mark belonging to a different proprietor and already on the register in respect of: The same goods; The same description of goods; or Services or a description of services, which are associated with those goods or goods of that description. Reason: McDonald Corporation claims that Future Enterprises mark is identical and has a near resembled to their trademark. McDonald Corporation also claims that Future Enterprises marks are associated with their goods in respect of restaurant and catering services as McDonald Corporation regards Food and Beverages is associated with hotel or restaurant service. Common Law Involved: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 2 for definition of Common Law) There are quite a number of Common Laws involved in our case study, we will look into the major cases that are referred to in corresponding to the different sections of Trade Mark Act that are involved. (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 3 for other cases referred (Common Laws)) Case refers corresponding to Section 12: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 4 for the summary of the case) Tiffany Co v Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SA [1999] 3 SLR 147 (folld) McDonald Corporation referred to the mentioned case as a support to enhance the claim that Future Enterprises mark is not made in good faith, claiming that Future Enterprise was making use of the prefix Mac to promote their products to the public through the association to McDonald Corporation. Case refers corresponding to Section 15: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 4 for the summary of the case) McDonalds Corporation v McBagels Inc (85 Civ 7868, 10 December 1986) (refd) McDonald Corporation referred to the mentioned case as a support to enhance the claim that using the prefix Mc or Mac as a naming convention will result confusion in the public to think that Future Enterprises products that has the name mark of Mac is associated to McDonald. Dispute and Resolution Mechanism: Singapore has its own hierarchy of Courts when dealing with Criminal and Civil Law. (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 5 for the diagram of Singapores hierarchy of Courts) Singapore Law system is very strict and serious to trade mark offences, it has imposed a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for a maximum term of 5 years for criminal liability in infringement act. For civil infringement, the court can award statutory damages of up to $1million. Usually, the High Court in the hierarchy of Singapore Court system will deal with intellectual property disputes and infringement. Referring to the Case Study, the case is dealt in High Court but due to appeal, the case is later brought into the Court of Appeal in resolving the case. Laws and their relevancy to the case Relevant laws and their application: Under s12(1) of the Act that the respondents claim to proprietorship of the three marks was not made in good faith as it had copied the common distinctive prefix of the appellants family of marks, namely, Mc; Under s15 of the Act that the registration of the three marks would likely deceive or cause confusion to the public; and Under s23(1) of the Act that the application marks were identical with or nearly resembled the trade marks belonging to the appellant. Fairness and unfairness: First case: (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 1 for Scenario of first case) It was decided in the first case that McDonald was unable to stop Future Enterprise form producing their products due to infringements of trademarks. I believed that the decision was fair as many evidence was provided to prove that Future Enterprise had made an effort to make their products distinctive to prevent confusion to the public. The evidence, from the article says that the products Future Enterprise produced were packaged with an eagle logo and it was sold mainly at NTUC FairPrice and Mustafa supermarkets in Singapore. This evidence enhances the point that Future Enterprise and McDonald were selling products targeted at different audiences from different markets. Furthermore, the article also showed that Future Enterprise has had its own product logos and color schemes different from McDonald. This point further showed that the marks were different whether it is in the aspects of appearance, sound or concept. Thus, it proves that customers/consumers had more ways to differentiate between the products of these 2 organizations, which further enhance the fairness of the judgment for this case. Last but not least, McDonald further protested that it had spent millions of dollars to create goodwill for it Mc series of marks, but evidence showed from the article says that Future Enterprise had also spent substantial time and resources in order to gain recognition from global market leaders. Therefore, it is fair to say that Future Enterprise did not cause loss whether in goodwill or financial damages, thus I think it is fair to say that fair judgment were made in this case. Second case: (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 2 for Scenario of second case) In the second case, Future Enterprise was brought up to court by McDonald again as they wanted to update their product design by dropping off their eagle logo. McDonald felt that their marks and naming conventions would be relatively similar which could cause confusion if Future Enterprise were to take out the distinctive eagle logo. Evidence from the article says that the two names sounded and looked too alike, and a substantial amount of average Singaporean would be confused with these two products. And also, the concept too was proved to be similar whether it is the products they are selling or the locations that they are selling the products. But, in our own opinion, we felt that there was unfairness presented in this judgment. In the first Court case between McDonald and Future Enterprise, it was judged that there were too many differences between McDonald and Future Enterprise whether it is in their logo, the products they sells or the audience they targeted. Thus, MacCoffee was able to be registered as a trademark and McDonalds appeal were dismissed. Yet, in the second court case, Future Enterprise loses the chance for its MacCoffee to be registered as a trademark name as they decided to drop their distinctive eagle logo. The first case stated that there were unanimous decisions in believing that products from Future Enterprise were not similar, whether in visual, sounds or concept, in comparison with products from McDonald. And also, evidence from the first case stated that the audience they targeted was remarkably different and the products they sold were also different. The judgment of the second case said that their marks were too similar and it would cause confusion after they drop the eagle logo. The appeals were dismissed with $10,000 payment made from Future Enterprise to McDonald. We felt that this judgment were unfair as there were contradictions which existed within this two cases. The products they sold were relatively different, ready-to-drink beverages from McCafe, and 3-in-1 coffee mix from MacCoffee. This presented a huge contrast between the products sold by the 2 organizations. Also, since it was decided in the first court case that the logos, type font, color schemes and targeted audiences were different for products of this 2 organizations, it should be brought up in the second case too in order to ensure fairness in this case. Thus they should take it into consideration of all these differences in the second court case rather than just concentrating on the similarities caused by the removed logos. Steps to further protect intellectual property rights For McDonald Corporation: Increase the monopolization of the prefix Mc into other service area that their business might want to expand into or have influence on. This is because the use of Mc is only subjected to McDonald in hotel and restaurant service and they might consider the use of this prefix into other service area thus, McDonald can maintain the rights of this prefix in other areas and future companies wont make use of the prefix in the same service area. For Food Empire Holdings: Food Empire Holdings could distinguish itself to McDonalds on the MacCoffee and McCafe by using back their earlier registered mark which appears below an eagle device, on its coffee products. This eagle device can play a part in determining whether the application mark is the same as McDonalds. (Refer to appendices Section B, B: 1 for the picture of Food Empire packaging) Recommendation As a consultant engaged by a big advertising company Do-It-Right Limited, we are responsible to report on the state of intellectual property protection in Singapore and to generally advise them whether there is an inherent and prevailing culture that respects other persons intellectual property rights. Thus, to start with it, we will recommend Do-It-Right Limited Company to advice their multinational clients to understand their own country intellectual property laws and the procedures of registering the trademark. In Singapore Intellectual Property Law, it is categorized into 6 main areas of: Copyright and Neighboring Rights, Industrial Designs, Patents, Confidential Information/Trade Secrets, Trade Marks and Passing Off. These are the 6 main areas under that Intellectual Property Law where the client ought to have a general knowledge of as understanding the laws in each area will be able to help clients to know the ways or methods to safeguard their intellectual properties by knowing which the areas of laws they should look into. To further protect clients intellectual property rights, it is a best advice for client to register their product. For Example: If an organization know that their property or design can be register under the Trademark protection, it is best to register in order to be under law of protection instead of limited protection. This is to ensure when an issue arise of a rival company copying the organization product or design. Organization in this case can use passing off law to protect their rights but this will result them to have limit law of protection if they fail to register their product design. Moreover, Trademark Law offer a great degree of protection comparing to Passing Off Law as Passing off Law require the breaching of Goodwill, Misrepresentations and Damage in order for the Law to take into consideration or effect. Thus in conclusion, it is important for Client to register their product or design under the Intellectual Property Law of protection to have more coverage of protection Lastly, we will also advice them to research on their competitors logo and name to avoid any misinterpretation and misunderstand of their own logo and name to their competitors. It is strongly recommended to use a unique and distinct design for their logo and name, which will lessen the chances of their competitors imitating their name and logo. Conclusion Through our case study on Mc Donald Corporation and Future Enterprise, we have a deep understanding about Intellectual Property Law in Singapore and how it can truly save guard our own personal property. We are also able to analyze the cases and discuss whether the Singapore Courts had made a right judgment. We had gained knowledge of Singapore Courts dealing with cases that involved the Intellectual Property Rights and know the importance of Intellectual Property that under the coverage of law to protect the important asset of an organization. References 1McDonalds Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd 2Food Empire Holdings Ltd 3 McDonalds Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4 Welcome to McDonalds 5 McDonalds Singapore 6 Singapore Intellectual Property Law#section5 7 Trademark Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 8 Passing off Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 9 McDonalds Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd 10 Rules of Court Appendices Extra Information Section A: A: 1 Statute Law Statue Law is written law that is created by governing authority like the parliament in the form of legislation to state out the civil order of the country and to implement and clarify the policies and operations of the government. Statute Law is also the law that state the consequences or punishments for committing a certain criminal or civil crime such as the Trademark Act or Passing off Act; new law can be introduced and existing law can be taken away in order to accommodate to the nation. A: 2 Common Law Common Law is unstated or unwritten law that is created by judges through court decisions. The decisions made by the judges on current case will depend on the decisions made in similar previous cases that took place. In other word, similar infringements and disputes, that have taken place in previous cases, will result the current case to follow the decisions and reasoning that being used. Common Law system is complicated, as the de cisions made in previous cases will affect the law in future cases and is totally distinguish from Statute Law. Moreover, the decisions made are bounded within a limited given jurisdiction. E.g. Decisions made in higher court such as Court of Appeal will affect the decisions in lower court. A: 3 Case(s) referred to (Common Law): Australian Woollen Mills Limited v F S Walton and Company Limited [1937] 58 CLR 641 (refd) Auvi Pte Ltd v Seah Siew Tee [1992] 1 SLR 639 (folld) Bali Trade Mark [1969] RPC 472 (refd) Beck Koller Company (England) Limited, In the Matter of an Application by [1947] 64 RPC 76 (fold) Brown Shoe Company Inc, Application by [1959] RPC 29 (folld) Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd [1994] 120 ALR 495 (folld) Compatibility Research Ltd v Computer Psyche Company Ltd [1967] FSR 63 (refd) Future enterprise Pte Ltd v Tong Seng Produce Pte Ltd [1998] 1 SLR 1012 (refd) Genette Trade Mark [1968] RPC 148 (folld) Harrods Limited v Harrodian School Limited [1996] RPC 697 (refd) Karu Pty Ltd v Jose [1994] 30 IPR 407 (folld) Kellogg Co v Pacific Food Products Sdn Bhd [1999] 2 SLR 651 (folld) Lever Brothers Ltd v Bedingfield [1899] 16 RPC 3 (folld) Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR 766 (folld) McDonalds Corporation v McBagels Inc (85 Civ 7868, 10 December 1986) (refd) McIndians, In the matter of an application to register the mark (UK Patent Office 16 August 1996)(refd) McMint, Opposition by McDonalds Corporation to the registration of the trademark (Australian Trade Mark Office, 7 November 1997) (folld) McSalad and McFresh, Opposition by McDonalds Corporation to the registration of the trademark (Australian Trade Mark Office, 1 May 2000) (not folld) McVeg, Opposition by McDonalds Corporation to the registration of the trademark (Australian Trade Mark Office, 10 November 1997) (folld) PB Foods Ltd v Malanda DairyFoods Ltd (1999) 47 IPR 47 (distd) Pianotist Company, In the Matter of an Application by (1906) 23 RPC 774 (folld) SEMIGRES Trade Mark [1979] RPC 330 (folld) Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407 (folld) Shell Co of Australian Ltd v Rohm Haas Co (1949) 78 CLR 601 (refd) Smith, Hayden Coy Ld, In the Matter of an Application by (1946) 63 RPC 97 (refd) Soldan Holding + Bonbonspezialitaeten GmbH, Re Application by (Singapore Trade Marks Registry, 20 July 2001) (refd) Sports Cafà © Ltd b Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 42 IPR 552 (folld) Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd v Unico Trading Pte Ltd [2000] 3 SLR 145 (folld) Tiffany Co v Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SA [1999] 3 SLR 147 (folld) UNIMAX Trade Mark [1979] RPC 469 (folld) Vitamins Lds Application, In the Matter of [1956] RPC 1 (folld) Wagamama Ltd v City Center Restaurants plc [1995] FSR 713 (refd) Yuen Yu Kwan Frank v McDonalds Corporation [2001] WL 1422899 (refd) A:4 Summary of cases for Common Laws Summary of Case refers corresponding to Section 12: Tiffany Co opposed the registration of the mark Tiffany by Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SA on cigarettes though; Tiffany Co has no monopoly in cigarettes industries. This may results in confusion as the entire word mark Tiffany was being copied over and the public might think that the cigarettes sold is produced or has connection to Tiffany Co upon seeing the Tiffany band of cigarettes. Summary of Case refers corresponding to Section 15: McDonald Corporation objected the use of McBagel in bagel bakery restaurant, as it would create confusion in public that people might think that McBagel is somehow associated with McDonald Corporation. Moreover, a survey was conducted and numerous people believed that McBagel was associated to McDonald Corporation due to the use of the prefix Mc. A.5 Diagram of Singapores hierarchy of Courts Section B: B: 1 Scenario of first case: McDonald had wanted to stop listed Future Enterprises from distributing products named MacNoodles, MacTea and MacChocolate. However, the court of appeal decided in a unanimous decision that the three trademarks were not deceptively similar to McDonalds Mac or Mc prefix. Thus in this case, the laws of protecting trademarks did not help McDonald to stop Future Enterprise from distributing their products, and also Future Enterprise were able to win this case as they did not breach the law of passing off. B: 2 Scenario of Second case: The dispute continues as Future Enterprise, a subsidiary and core unit of listed Food Empire Holding decided to updates it product design, MacCoffee to drop its original eagle design. McDonald objected as the similarity now existed when Future Enterprise decides to take out its distinct eagle design. After objection arose, Future Enterprise appealed for the MacCoffee brand to be registered as trademark, which in the end the appeal was dismissed. The laws of protecting trademark in this case were being carried out. MacCoffee were not distinct enough to be registered as a trademark, thus the appeal was dismissed. Also, after removing the eagle design, it was judged that goodwill was breach in terms of causing confusion to the public with similar products. Thus McDonald had successfully won this case with the appeal and Future Enterprise appeals were all dismissed and they were to pay a sum of $10,000 to McDonald to cover their loss. Section C: C: 1 Pictures of Food Empire MacCoffe packaging Old Packaging New Packaging Schedule of Meeting Date Discussion 28th May 2008 Analyze the cases Facts Inter-relationship Tasks allocated to each of the members 30th May 2008 Discuss the research done Singapore Laws (Statute Law Common Law) Singapore Courts Intellectual Property Rights Started the report writing 5th June 2008 Continuation of the report Modification of report Error Checking Rephrasing 9th June 2008 Finalization of the report Work Plan 3.1 Description of Assignment The objective for this final report gives us more understanding of the Singapore Laws that can be applied to these two cases. We are able to apply our basic knowledge learned in the lecture to discuss whether the cases had been judge fairly. 3.2 Team Members Nur Afidah Binte Afandi, Mark Heng Kok Hoong, Teo Lay Hoon, Goh Kok Jui Kelvin, Chai Guo Wei Problems encountered and Solutions 4.1 Problem: Time Consume Solution: Planning out the schedule what we should do first and what should we do next helps to cut down the time wastage.

Gimpel the full :: essays research papers

In almost any culture, through the study of its folklore, we are almost certain to find the story of a wise fool(Hamlet, Tom Sawyer, Claudio, Don Quixote, Van Gogh, Forest Gump). The moral of most folktales stories involves a paradox regarding the philosophical value of being dull, or pretending to be dull. So is Gimpel a fool or is he so innately wise to know that pretending to be a fool is advantageous? Let’s theorize an experiment. If we set a table in the middle of a crowded park, and place a bowl of strawberries on it with a sign â€Å"Free samples,† it won’t be long before people start to take one strawberry at a time first. Invariably several of the first samplers, will come back, and on their second approach surely they will take more than one strawberry. What this experiment would demonstrate is the curiosity of human nature, and the almost irresistible tendency to take the most advantage of a situation where the participants have nothing to risk. So, in Gimpel’s predicament, we was declared by the villagers’ general consensus to be someone easy to take advantage of( a fool?). It was also a general consensus to place a prank on him, ever better and more confusing than the last one. The point I am trying to get across is that Gimpel was a gullible, sensible person, not a fool (the strawberry). It was probably the surrounding of his upbringing; the lack of parental guidance; or just a resolute spirit not to blurt his vision of honesty with the mundane trifles that made him so docile. He understood early in life his karma, and decided to go along with it. The villain here is the rest of the world; even the Rabbi leant on him. There was no a single person who came to his defense. He was the village’s unwilling jester. They wanted to ridicule him as much as possible, or to laugh at him if someone else did the same.

Mechanical Engineers :: Technology, Informative

A mechanical engineer works with the principles of motion, energy and force. Usually a machine changes one form of movement into another. Mechanical engineers design machines whose parts work in a safe, reliable and efficient way. Mechanical engineers apply scientific method to find the answers to mechanical problems. Many laws and principles developed by scientists are used every day by the mechanical engineer. Mechanical engineers contribute to many industries and occupations. Some mechanical engineers work in areas not usually thought to require engineering. Efforts to clean up and preserve the earth's environment have drawn many mechanical engineers to projects that deal with the treatment of water, soil and waste material. Mechanical engineers also work with physicians, therapists and other medical professionals to study the workings of the human body and design aids and instruments for mechanic. Mechanical engineers work in industry, consulting practices, universities and government research. Most mechanical engineers are employed in industry at equipment manufacturers, aerospace companies, utilities, and many other large and small companies. Job responsibilities range from basic research and systems design to power plant operations and quality control. Mechanical engineers earn good salaries. A starting engineer with a bachelor's degree may earn $40,000 a year. The median salary for an engineer is over $65,000. Earnings depend on experience and training. The government tends to pay its engineers slightly less than the going rate in private industry. Large companies that high mechanical engineers usually offer complete benefit packages. The benefits include health insurance, life insurance, paid sick leave, paid vacations and holidays and travel expenses.

The Deadly Influence of National Socialism Essay -- National Socialism

The Deadly Influence of National Socialism National Socialism was a political movement that emerged in Germany after its defeat in World War I. This movement is more commonly known as Nazism. The National Socialist Party or Nazi Party was formed in Munich is 1919. Adolph Hitler was given all dictatorial powers as the result of the Enabling Act. By 1933 the party had gained control over the entire German state and the ideas, propaganda, and doctrines of National Socialism were written in Hitler's Mein Kampf (My Struggle) . Hitler believed that, "The Nordic master race was created to rule over inferior races, especially the Jews" (McManus 5). This was just the beginning of Nazi thought that swept throughout Germany until the end of World War II. Party membership was "voluntary" and millions joined, some willingly and others against their will. National Socialism transformed Germany from a weak republic to a powerful state. This change was brought about by one individual, Adolph Hitler. Hitler had tremendous influence o ver millions in the German community. National Socialism greatly influenced the church and education in the Third Reich. Today the Nazi influence is seen in white nationalist groups all over the world. It was essential for churches in the Third Reich to understand what was happening politically in Germany. Hitler subordinated church policy to his political policies. Tensions were high in the German Bishops' Conference between the president Archbishop Bertram and Bishop Preysing. Preysing saw that the Third Reich was corrupt as early as 1933. The Vatican and most of the German Bishops agreed with the ideas of National Socialism. Bertram defended the government until his death in 1945. Preysing... ...race is superior to all others. Hitler impacted both the church and education in Germany. The effects of the Nazi party are still felt today. The power of an individual should never be underestimated. In Hitler's case, it is apparent that one individual can influence millions lives and completely change the course of history. Works Cited - Blackburn, Gilmer. Education in the Third Reich. Albany: New York Press, 1985. - Constable, George. The Twisted Dream. Virginia: TIME-LIFE, 1990. - Gay, Kathlyn. Neo-Nazis: A Growing Threat. New Jersey: Enslow, 1997 - Hockenas, Paul. Free to Hate. London: Routledge, 1993. - McManus, Jason. The New Order. Virginia: TIME-LIFE, 1989. - Scholder, Klaus. A Requiem for Hitler. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989. - Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich. New York: Macmillan, 1969.

Carl Jung Theory

Jung's theory divides the psyche into three parts. The first is the ego, which Jung identifies with the conscious mind. Closely related is the personal unconscious, which includes anything that is not presently conscious, but can be. The personal unconscious is like most people's understanding of the unconscious in that it includes both memories that are easily brought to mind and those that have been suppressed for some reason. But it does not include the instincts that Freud would have it include. But then Jung adds the part of the psyche that makes his theory stand out from all others: the collective unconscious. You could call it your â€Å"psychic inheritance. † It is the reservoir of our experiences as a species, a kind of knowledge we are all born with. And yet we can never be directly conscious of it. It influences all of our experiences and behaviors, most especially the emotional ones, but we only know about it indirectly, by looking at those influences. There are some experiences that show the effects of the collective unconscious more clearly than others: The experiences of love at first sight, of deja vu (the feeling that you've been here before), and the immediate recognition of certain symbols and the meanings of certain myths, could all be understood as the sudden conjunction of our outer reality and the inner reality of the collective unconscious. Grander examples are the creative experiences shared by artists and musicians all over the world and in all times, or the spiritual experiences of mystics of all religions, or the parallels in dreams, fantasies, mythologies, fairy tales, and literature. A nice example that has been greatly discussed recently is the near-death experience. It seems that many people, of many different cultural backgrounds, find that they have very similar recollections when they are brought back from a close encounter with death. They speak of leaving their bodies, seeing their bodies and the events surrounding them clearly, of being pulled through a long tunnel towards a bright light, of seeing deceased relatives or religious figures waiting for them, and of their disappointment at having to leave this happy scene to return to their bodies. Perhaps we are all â€Å"built† to experience death in this fashion. Archetypes The contents of the collective unconscious are called archetypes. Jung also called them dominants, imagos, mythological or primordial images, and a few other names, but archetypes seem to have won out over these. An archetype is an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way. The archetype has no form of its own, but it acts as an â€Å"organizing principle† on the things we see or do. It works the way that instincts work in Freud's theory: At first, the baby just wants something to eat, without knowing what it wants. It has a rather indefinite yearning, which, nevertheless, can be satisfied by some things and not by others. Later, with experience, the child begins to yearn for something more specific when it is hungry — a bottle, a cookie, a broiled lobster, a slice of New York style pizza. The archetype is like a black hole in space: You only know its there by how it draws matter and light to itself. The mother archetype The mother archetype is a particularly good example. All of our ancestors had mothers. We have evolved in an environment that included a mother or mother-substitute. We would never have survived without our connection with a nurturing-one during our times as helpless infants. It stands to reason that we are â€Å"built† in a way that reflects that evolutionary environment: We come into this world ready to want mother, to seek her, to recognize her, to deal with her. So the mother archetype is our built-in ability to recognize a certain relationship, that of â€Å"mothering. † Jung says that this is rather abstract, and we are likely to project the archetype out into the world and onto a particular person, usually our own mothers. Even when an archetype doesn't have a particular real person available, we tend to personify the archetype, that is, turn it into a mythological â€Å"story-book† character. This character symbolizes the archetype. The mother archetype is symbolized by the primordial mother or â€Å"earth mother† of mythology, by Eve and Mary in western traditions, and by less personal symbols such as the church, the nation, a forest, or the ocean. According to Jung, someone whose own mother failed to satisfy the demands of the archetype may well be one that spends his or her life seeking comfort in the church, or in identification with â€Å"the motherland,† or in meditating upon the figure of Mary, or in a life at sea. Mana You must understand that these archetypes are not really biological things, like Freud's instincts. They are more spiritual demands. For example, if you dreamt about long things, Freud might suggest these things represent the phallus and ultimately sex. But Jung might have a very different interpretation. Even dreaming quite specifically about a penis might not have much to do with some unfulfilled need for sex. It is curious that in primitive societies, phallic symbols do not usually refer to sex at all. They usually symbolize mana, or spiritual power. These symbols would be displayed on occasions when the spirits are being called upon to increase the yield of corn, or fish, or to heal someone. The connection between the penis and strength, between semen and seed, between fertilization and fertility are understood by most cultures. The shadow Sex and the life instincts in general are, of course, represented somewhere in Jung's system. They are a part of an archetype called the shadow. It derives from our prehuman, animal past, when our concerns were limited to survival and reproduction, and when we weren't self-conscious. It is the â€Å"dark side† of the ego, and the evil that we are capable of is often stored there. Actually, the shadow is amoral — neither good nor bad, just like animals. An animal is capable of tender care for its young and vicious killing for food, but it doesn't choose to do either. It just does what it does. It is â€Å"innocent. † But from our human perspective, the animal world looks rather brutal, inhuman, so the shadow becomes something of a garbage can for the parts of ourselves that we can't quite admit to. Symbols of the shadow include the snake (as in the garden of Eden), the dragon, monsters, and demons. It often guards the entrance to a cave or a pool of water, which is the collective unconscious. Next time you dream about wrestling with the devil, it may only be yourself you are wrestling with! The persona The persona represents your public image. The word is, obviously, related to the word person and personality, and comes from a Latin word for mask. So the persona is the mask you put on before you show yourself to the outside world. Although it begins as an archetype, by the time we are finished realizing it, it is the part of us most distant from the collective unconscious. At its best, it is just the â€Å"good impression† we all wish to present as we fill the roles society requires of us. But, of course, it can also be the â€Å"false impression† we use to manipulate people's opinions and behaviors. And, at its worst, it can be mistaken, even by ourselves, for our true nature: Sometimes we believe we really are what we pretend to be! Anima and animus A part of our persona is the role of male or female we must play. For most people that role is determined by their physical gender. But Jung, like Freud and Adler and others, felt that we are all really bisexual in nature. When we begin our lives as fetuses, we have undifferentiated sex organs that only gradually, under the influence of hormones, become male or female. Likewise, when we begin our social lives as infants, we are neither male nor female in the social sense. Almost immediately — as soon as those pink or blue booties go on — we come under the influence of society, which gradually molds us into men and women. In all societies, the expectations placed on men and women differ, usually based on our different roles in reproduction, but often involving many details that are purely traditional. In our society today, we still have many remnants of these traditional expectations. Women are still expected to be more nurturant and less aggressive; men are still expected to be strong and to ignore the emotional side of life. But Jung felt these expectations meant that we had developed only half of our potential. The anima is the female aspect present in the collective unconscious of men, and the animus is the male aspect present in the collective unconscious of women. Together, they are referred to as syzygy. The anima may be personified as a young girl, very spontaneous and intuitive, or as a witch, or as the earth mother. It is likely to be associated with deep emotionality and the force of life itself. The animus may be personified as a wise old man, a sorcerer, or often a number of males, and tends to be logical, often rationalistic, and even argumentative. The anima or animus is the archetype through which you communicate with the collective unconscious generally, and it is important to get into touch with it. It is also the archetype that is responsible for much of our love life: We are, as an ancient Greek myth suggests, always looking for our other alf, the half that the Gods took from us, in members of the opposite sex. When we fall in love at first sight, then we have found someone that â€Å"fills† our anima or animus archetype particularly well! Other archetypes Jung said that there is no fixed number of archetypes that we could simply list and memorize. They overlap and easily melt into each other as needed, and their logic is not the usual kind. But here are some he mentions: Beside s mother, their are other family archetypes. Obviously, there is father, who is often symbolized by a guide or an authority figure. There is also the archetype family, which represents the idea of blood relationship and ties that run deeper than those based on conscious reasons. There is also the child, represented in mythology and art by children, infants most especially, as well as other small creatures. The Christ child celebrated at Christmas is a manifestation of the child archetype, and represents the future, becoming, rebirth, and salvation. Curiously, Christmas falls during the winter solstice, which in northern primitive cultures also represents the future and rebirth. People used to light bonfires and perform ceremonies to encourage the sun's return to them. The child archetype often blends with other archetypes to form the child-god, or the child-hero. Many archetypes are story characters. The hero is one of the main ones. He is the mana personality and the defeater of evil dragons. Basically, he represents the ego — we do tend to identify with the hero of the story — and is often engaged in fighting the shadow, in the form of dragons and other monsters. The hero is, however, often dumb as a post. He is, after all, ignorant of the ways of the collective unconscious. Luke Skywalker, in the Star Wars films, is the perfect example of a hero. The hero is often out to rescue the maiden. She represents purity, innocence, and, in all likelihood, naivete. In the beginning of the Star Wars story, Princess Leia is the maiden. But, as the story progresses, she becomes the anima, discovering the powers of the force — the collective unconscious — and becoming an equal partner with Luke, who turns out to be her brother. The wise old man guides the hero. He is a form of the animus, and reveals to the hero the nature of the collective unconscious. In Star Wars, he is played by Obi Wan Kenobi and, later, Yoda. Notice that they teach Luke about the force and, as Luke matures, they die and become a part of him. You might be curious as to the archetype represented by Darth Vader, the â€Å"dark father. † He is the shadow and the master of the dark side of the force. He also turns out to be Luke and Leia's father. When he dies, he becomes one of the wise old men. There is also an animal archetype, representing humanity's relationships with the animal world. The hero's faithful horse would be an example. Snakes are often symbolic of the animal archetype, and are thought to be particularly wise. Animals, after all, are more in touch with their natures than we are. Perhaps loyal little robots and reliable old spaceships — the Falcon– are also symbols of animal. And there is the trickster, often represented by a clown or a magician. The trickster's role is to hamper the hero's progress and to generally make trouble. In Norse mythology, many of the gods' adventures originate in some trick or another played on their majesties by the half-god Loki. There are other archetypes that are a little more difficult to talk about. One is the original man, represented in western religion by Adam. Another is the God archetype, representing our need to comprehend the universe, to give a meaning to all that happens, to see it all as having some purpose and direction. The hermaphrodite, both male and female, represents the union of opposites, an important idea in Jung's theory. In some religious art, Jesus is presented as a rather feminine man. Likewise, in China, the character Kuan Yin began as a male saint (the bodhisattva Avalokiteshwara), but was portrayed in such a feminine manner that he is more often thought of as the female goddess of compassion! The most important archetype of all is the self. The self is the ultimate unity of the personality and is symbolized by the circle, the cross, and the mandala figures that Jung was fond of painting. A mandala is a drawing that is used in meditation because it tends to draw your focus back to the center, and it can be as simple as a geometric figure or as complicated as a stained glass window. The personifications that best represent self are Christ and Buddha, two people who many believe achieved perfection. But Jung felt that perfection of the personality is only truly achieved in death.