By Caryn Fisher

The ongoing trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the alleged mass killer from Norway who is undergoing trial for the murder of 77 people, reopens the concept of a link between violent video games and acts of violence in real life. During his trial, Breivik stated that he used the game “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” as shooting practice prior to the incident and had in the past spent time playing “World of Warcraft” for up to 16 hours a day. Although various studies and recent articles by Forbes and Reuters agree that there is no correlation between violent video games and violence itself, there is still a fear of correlation which the media plays upon, particularly in cases such as school shootings. Additionally, there also exists the problem of video game addiction, a problem currently faced by the South Korean government, as well as many other nations.

Imagine Seoul, a city where there is a 24-hour PC room on almost every street, filled with people of various ages who stay there from anywhere to a few hours to over a day. South Korea is a country where celebrities aren’t just movie stars and singers, but are also pro-gamers, such as Lim Yo-Hwan (aka Slayers_BoxeR), who earns around US $400,000 a year. In addition to celebrity pro-gamers, as of 2002, many of Korea’s major companies, such as SK Telecom and Samsung Electronics, began to sponsor teams to compete in pro-matches and tournaments, some of which reached audiences of 120,000 on-site and over 1,000,000 through online streaming.

For any video game fanatic, this would seem like paradise, but to the Korean government, this might not be the case. According to the National Information Society Agency, approximately 8% of the population in South Korea between the ages of 9 and 39 suffers from internet addiction, the rate being the highest for those between the ages of 9 and 12, coming in at around 14%. Due to this the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family instituted the Cinderella Law (also known as the Shutdown Law) in 2011. Under the Cinderella Law, individuals under the age of 16 are banned from accessing gaming websites between midnight and 6am. The South Korean government started this initiative in the hopes of treating people for gaming addiction and to help increase the amount of time that students spend studying, rather than online.

Despite the fact that this program was started less than a year ago, there have already been some mixed reactions by the parents of the game playing youth. Some parents state that they feel the government is trying to dictate their children’s lives, while giving the parents less say in how to educate their children. At the same time, there has also been some positive feedback from other parents, such as those who feel that as parents they often don’t have the time to constantly monitor their children’s online-gaming behavior due to having to work late. No matter which side their parents fall on though, young students who have been blocked from their hobby have already found other ways to get around the system, using their parents’ ID numbers instead of their own to register for the games for example.

Unfortunately, the Cinderella Law initiative, focused mostly on younger students, does not fully address the issue of gaming addiction in Korea. Although the Korean cases of internet and gaming addiction are not linked to cases of murder, such as the case of Columbine High School in the United States, there are many cases of personal and familial neglect that have stemmed from gaming addiction. One of such cases was in 2005 when a 28 year old man collapsed and died after playing the game “StarCraft” for 50 hours straight, with little sleep and few meals. The man, who died in a Daegu hospital after collapsing in a PC room, is said to have passed due to heart failure stemming from exhaustion. There was also another case in 2010 in which a Korean couple pleaded guilty to negligent homicide after their three month old daughter died of malnutrition while they visited PC rooms for extended gaming sessions. Ironically, the game they played, “Prius Online,” involved the raising of a child in the game. Although these types of cases are quite rare, the Korean government has responded by subsidizing programs in hundreds of hospitals and clinics focused on treating gaming addiction, one example being the Save Brain Clinic at Gongju National Hospital.

Although the figures for gaming addiction in South Korea seem relatively small compared to that of the United States, where up to 90% of young individuals play video games and up to 15% of them may be addicted to gaming, and China, where approximately 20 million people play online games, it is still a positive step that the South Korean government is looking into the issue. Along with South Korea, several other countries, including the United States, China, the Netherlands, and Canada have also begun opening treatment centers for gaming addiction. While the threat of gaming addiction looms, the Korean government also cannot deny that in a country of nearly 50 million people, of which more than half are registered for online gaming, the online-gaming industry is an important industry for the country. In 2011, it earned $1.1 billion in exports, more than half of the country’s overseas revenue. Balancing the benefits of this booming industry with its potential cost will likely continue to be a challenge as the influence and benefits, as both a hobby and occupation, continue to grow, particularly for the younger generations, in the most wired country in the world.

Caryn Fisher is the Executive Assistant to the President at the Korea Economic Institute. The views expressed here are her own.

Photo from Rory O’Donnell’s photo stream on flickr Creative Commons.

by Nicholas Hamisevicz

Last month South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) commissioner Noh Dae-lae stated that DAPA had exceeded its defense exports goals last year and was now attempting to sell over $3 billion defense exports in 2012.  South Korea might have hit that $3 billion mark last year if it won a contract from the Indian Air Force to supply 75 KT-1 fighter aircraft trainers. Despite losing out on the bid, South Korea’s should continue to compete for military acquisition bids by the Indian military and other emerging countries to help strengthen partnerships and enhance its domestic military development.

South Korea is looking to increase its military exports. Shipbuilding has typically been one of South Korea’s main advantages. Last year, Korea was able to win a contract worth around $500 million for eight minesweepers to India to help protect Indian harbors from being mined by enemy submarines.

Korea has also had success in selling fighter aircraft trainers abroad. The KT-1 and the T-50 are the two fighter trainers Korea has pushed in competitive bid selections by foreign countries. Indonesia bought 12 KT-1 fighter trainers in 2001 and signed a deal last year to buy 16 T-50 fighter jet trainers from Korea. Turkey agreed to buy 40 KT-1 trainers as well.

Success in these countries led to the KT-1 competing in India’s bid for fighter trainers. The KT-1 recently came in second behind the Swiss Pilatus PC-7 in this competition. However, South Korea has filed a complaint arguing that Switzerland’s Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. did not submit a maintenance transfer of technology cost assessment (MTOT), giving the Pilatus PC-7 aircraft a cost advantage over the other competitors. The complaint appears to have delayed the Indian Air Force’s process of moving forward with Pilatus, but it will likely be difficult to see the decision reversed and given to the KT-1.

The intense competition to win the fighter trainer contract and the uncertainty around the decision recalls the rejection by India’s Ministry of Defense of the U.S.’s bids from Boeing with its F-18 and Lockheed Martin with its F-16 for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition. Dassault’s Rafale fighter recently won this high-profile bid.

The combination of companies trying to win military contracts worth millions of dollars (or billions with the MMRCA bid) and countries attempting to augment their partnerships with a rising India makes these bids even more competitive. India’s desire to strengthen its military capabilities and its history of purchasing equipment and arms from variety of companies from multiple countries will likely remain, keeping competition for military contracts fierce. Winning a large military contract with India helps solidify a country’s strategic partnership with Indian and provide a unique connection that further enhances the relationship between the two countries. South Korea is hoping its new strategic partnership with India would lead to success with its defense exports to the rising power. Winning the minesweeper contract but difficulties with the fighter trainer competition demonstrate the tough aspects of the military acquisition process in India. However, South Korea should continue to pursue military bids in India and create connections with Indian military officials, which will benefit the long-term strategic aspects of their strategic partnership and the enhancement of overall South Korea – India relations.

Picture by Defense Industry Daily

By Chad 0′Carroll

Last week the hosts of the world’s most popular political podcast, Naneun Ggomsuda, spoke to a packed audience in Washington DC as part of a tour that also took them to Boston, New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.  Focusing primarily on the satire of domestic South Korean politics, worldwide demand for the podcast is particularly noteworthy as the podcast now has six million listeners worldwide.  Their popularity is the latest evidence that younger South Koreans are using the internet more than ever before to explore their political views.  And as more of them do so, it will become increasingly important for political groups in South Korea to proactively communicate with younger generations online.

South Korea has emerged as the world leader in internet connectivity with nearly 95% of the population now having high-speed access.  This is the result of a significant investment in communications infrastructure, low cost access from intense competition in the market, and the ease of connecting South Korea’s high density population to the web.  But it’s not just households that are enjoying the internet; over twenty million smart phone users in South Korea (nearly half the population) now browse a highly personalized version of the internet on a daily basis.   Taken together, this is leading to fundamental changes in the way people communicate and receive information in South Korea.

Compared to the United States where Facebook remains the main forum for online communication, South Korea has long favored social media platforms that encourage an exchange of personal opinion over merely connecting with friends.   As a result, the ROK is home to one of the world’s largest blogging communities (second only to China), while its Twitter community has an active user rate that is some two times higher than the world average.  In addition, there is significant use of online forums and bulletin-board systems, with many designed specifically to debate politics and current affairs. Deep internet penetration and huge demand for social networking platforms can thus quickly propel issues of relative insignificance onto center stage in South Korea.

A look at recent history reveals some very interesting insights into the interplay between the internet and politics in South Korea.  In 2000, following the shocking defeat of Roh Moo-hyun in a National Assembly election, an online fan club emerged called “Rohsamo” (people who love Roh).  Conducting volunteer work, fundraising and even a viral SMS campaign on the day of the election, the Rohsamo may have played a key role in contributing to Roh’s dramatic 2002 election win.  Another very important contribution to Roh’s victory came from internet news service OhMyNews, a liberal-leaning news service originally built to provide an alternative news source for younger generations “disillusioned with the biased reporting of traditional media”.   It put Roh’s electoral campaign center stage in front of a politically motivated audience that helped draw attention to his candidacy through a number of advocacy activities.

If 2002 represented the start of South Korean social media activism, 2008 marked its evolution with the protests against a resumption of U.S. beef imports.  As the resumption of beef imports was being negotiated, rumor and speculation regarding potential exposure to Mad Cow disease started circulating online, receiving considerable attention even in the mainstream press.  Social media platforms soon mobilized hundreds of thousands throughout the country opposed to the resumption of U.S. beef imports to participate in candlelight vigils, marking the biggest anti-government protest in over twenty years.  Although the vigils’ didn’t end-up stopping the importation of U.S. beef, they did end up leading to a commercial agreement  putting some restrictions in place and a universal offer to resign from Lee Myung Bak’s cabinet.

This year has seen the convergence of social media and political interests continue, with a Twitter campaign being credited with higher than expected voter turnout during the during the April 2011 by-elections .  And in the recent Seoul mayoral elections, social media campaigning may have been the reason political-novice Park Won-soon received three times more votes from younger generations than his GNP rival.”

With presidential elections around the corner in South Korea, the growing convergence of social media and political activism suggests that we should expect significant political interest amongst younger voters in 2012.  While the emergence of an online forum for activists is difficult to control, politicians in South Korea can learn much from the team behind President Obama’s election in 2008.  Their embrace of social media and commitment to reach out to younger generations played a large role in helping propel President Obama’s promise of “change” to young people not just in the United States, but across the globe.

Chad 0’Carroll is the Director of Communications for the Korea Economic Institute. The views represented here are his own.

Image by Aslan Media

By Chad O’Carroll

Originally known for being a company that sold bargain electronics products, in 1995 Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee ordered his employees to set on fire a mountain of 140,000 mobile phones, fax machines and other electronics in an effort to reform and rejuvenate the company.  Fast forward to 2011, and in the cell phone market Samsung has gone from being a supplier of low-end, unattractive mobile technology, to becoming one of the key players in a highly competitive smart phone market.  It’s most recent offing, the Galaxy S2, has even outsold Apple’s iPhone in some countries – something that would have been unthinkable just a year or two ago.   But this success has not come without problems, as an increasingly intense and high profile legal fracas with Apple has recently been illustrating.

Since April, Apple and Samsung have been waging an increasingly aggressive legal battle, filing over thirty lawsuits in ten countries around the world.  Apple initiated the proceedings in the U.S., claiming that Samsung’s “Galaxy” cell phones and tablet computers “slavishly” copied its own iPhone and iPad designs and patents. While Apple enjoyed some legal success, banning some of Samsung’s sales (at least temporarily) in Australia, The Netherlands and Germany, it has fared less well in the world’s largest market – the U.S. There, Samsung stalled Apple’s claim that it had exclusive rights to the form of the iPad by showing adjudicators a device eerily similar to the iPad that featured in the 1968 film, “2001: A Space Odyssey”.  And in response to Apple’s legal attacks, Samsung accused it of infringing several of its own mobile technology and user interface patents, most recently articulating in attempts to ban the iPhone 4S and iPad2 in Italy, France Japan and Australia.

Patent disputes such as these are highly common in the tech industry, and even though some of the claims might seem petty or even farcical, they are often pursued with the aim of profiting from the sales of a competitor through settlements that oblige per-unit-payments to the winning party.  However, in this battle, Apple has made clear that it has no desire to coming to any such settlement with Samsung. Instead, it appears that Apple is seeking to prevent Galaxy sales in as many markets as possible, at seemingly any cost.

Part of this obstinacy may be down to the fact that Samsung’s smart phones use Google’s Android, an operating system that Steve Jobs labeled a “stolen” product.  Leaks from his soon-to-be-released biography claim that Jobs said, “I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong…I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”  Harsh words, but easy to understand when Jobs was the one who witnessed the look and feel of the original Macintosh operating system being so relentlessly copied by Microsoft in the 1980s, much to the damage of Apple’s then business model. And even easier to understand given the suspicious fact that the current Google Executive Chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt was a former Apple board member and personal friend of Jobs during the time of iPhone development.

The other part of this obstinacy is possibly down to Samsung’s own very close relationship with Apple.  Although both are locked in legal battles, from the get-go Samsung supplied Apple with several key components for both the iPhone and iPad (and continues to), and has thus been in a unique position to know intimate details regarding the hardware and architecture of Apple’s designs. According to this line of thinking, Apple may have seen Samsung as abusing its “insider” position to get a head-start in its own smart-phone and tablet design process.

But is Apple’s position really tenable?  Just yesterday it won a U.S. patent for the “slide-to-lock” feature of the iPhone, opening the door for potentially hundreds of lawsuits with a plethora of manufacturers.  However, in the Netherlands the same patent case failed, because it was proved the “slide-to-lock” feature previously existed on the Neonode N1M phone.  When analyzing the current battle between Samsung and Apple, one has to ask if Apple should really have the right to patent every aspect of its technology.

To be sure, it is understandable to clamp down on companies that fake or clone one’s own technology, but had other companies taken Apple’s approach to patent litigation, where would we now be?  Could Alexander Bell now sue Apple for selling a product that allows users to transmit their voice telephonically, or could the U.S. company Bell, inventor’s of the first push button phone, also sue Apple for creating a touch-screen version of its own invention?

The reality is that the realization of Apple’s iPhone and iPad depended on the ideas and work of many other companies – the technologies these platforms are based on were not reinvented afresh for Apple’s sole purview. And while Apple did a great job in refining these ideas and adding to them, it should not blame Samsung or Android for doing the same with the current menu of cell-phone and tablet technology.  In effect, all manufacturers are moving down a usability funnel, headed to the same shared goal of achieving a perfect interaction between machine and human.

Chad 0’Carroll is the Director of Communications for the Korea Economic Institute. The views represented here are his own.

On June 8 – 18, KEI Vice President, Abraham Kim, visited North Korea with a group of American Asia experts.  The purpose of the trip was to analyze the efficacy of sanctions, conditions in the cities/countryside, the integration of technology, the prevalance of cell phones and political conditions.  The slide presentation were shown at the GRS Annual Conference in July 2011 and a forum at Wilson Center in September 2011.