A recent OECD report “…suggested the government open its service market further, complete its restructuring of the financial sector and further ease regulations on foreign investment…remove ownership, procedural and regulatory barriers to foreign direct investment, which is currently relatively low.”
http://times.hankooki.com/lpag.....711860.htm

And, according to a 2004 US gov. report:

Autos
“The combination of relatively high tariffs and value-added taxes continues to render a variety of imported products uncompetitive in Korea. One such product is motor vehicles, which are subject to a tariff rate of 8 percent B more than three times the U.S. tariff B as well as multiple taxes compounded on the tariff, which raises the effective tariff rate to above 12 percent… a Korean study showed would increase foreign auto imports to 12 percent of the total market in 5 years if the tariff were reduced to 2.5 percent - and simplification of the auto tax system would have the most immediate and significant impact.”

“In July 2003, the Korean government modified the Special Consumption Tax from a three-tier to a two- tier system that is still based on engine displacement size. After the modification, vehicles with engine displacement up to 2000 cc were taxed at 5 percent while vehicles with engine size of 2000 cc or greater were levied a 10 percent tax. Even though the U.S. Government continues to urge the Korean government to undertake such changes in a transparent manner which fully involves all stakeholders, this decision was made by the National Assembly with only a few days notice, allowing little time for industry or U.S. Government comments. It is highly unfortunate that such important decisions are being made in a such non-transparent manner.”

Drugs
“Regarding pharmaceuticals, in June 2002, the KFDA implemented Drug Master File (DMF) requirements that oblige manufacturers to submit significant quantities of proprietary manufacturing data to the KFDA as part of the drug approval process. The Korean government says the
requirements are designed to assure product quality. U.S. industry, however, has expressed concern that because the requirements apply only to new drugs they apply almost exclusively to foreign manufacturers
of innovative pharmaceuticals, and not to local generic companies. Industry has raised concerns that the requirements may delay market access and could jeopardize intellectual property protection.

Agriculture
“Of particular concern, the new import inspection program mandates annual maximum residue limit (MRL) testing of agricultural products on a packing-house basis and the associated testing fee of approximately
$1,960 for foreign products. However, Korean domestic agricultural products are only subject to random tests paid for by the Korean government.”

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Doc.....6_4779.pdf.

anyway, i still think it’s foolishly counterproductive to expect the law-abiding buyers of software to have to foot the bill for the lawbreakers doing piracy. not only is that patently unfair to the people trying to follow the rules, but it will encourage some to just say ’screw it!’ to the people trying to screw them.

oh, and giant panda, if the audits were going on as little as five years ago, i stand corrected. i must be getting old… 1990s all one big blur. wait a minute, the _five_-year-old article you linked says the audits are ‘no longer an official policy,’ instead citing ‘lingering fear of tax audits’ that can be ‘a powerful deterrent to any consumer in any country.’ so maybe i was right about the audits being from ten years ago. i don’t recall them being around after the imf bail-out, which was my point.

also, on what basis do you say korea still has one of the most closed markets in the world? i’m not saying it’s a picnic for foreign companies, but it has gotten a lot better. even if you are only talking about the _auto_ market, do you have something more recent on which to base this? things seem very different now from even just a year ago. i nearly get run over by bmws or volkswagens on a daily basis now.

np

No. What I’m saying, however, is that the fact that over 50 percent of users are going to be using pirated versions may be factor in the costs of localizing the software. And the fact that Microsoft is apparently not the only one engaged in the practice would seem to suggest there is more going on than simply Microsoft greed, and I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts the piracy rate plays a big part. Gotta recoup your losses, after all.

oh, and, what do you suppose the piracy rates are for microsoft products in the u.s.? among people i know, it??s considerably more than 50%.

Now, while I’m not particularly sure what the piracy rate for Microsoft products was in the U.S., the software piracy rate as a whole was 22 percent in 2003.

i believe that most of the import taxes have been removed. american cars are no longer the super-high-priced vehicles they once were (i think). and now japanese cars are readily available, too, a big step. give credit where credit is due: since the economic crisis korea has been dismantling a lot of the protectionist policies that were once routine.

now, i’m trying to get something clear… are you saying that microsoft is justified in double or triple charging the customers who are FOLLOWING the rules in korea because there are so many who are NOT following them? that doesn’t seem like sound policy if you’re trying to encourage people to buy legitimate copies of software.

oh, and, what do you suppose the piracy rates are for microsoft products in the u.s.? among people i know, it’s considerably more than 50%.

np