Comments on: Methods of CI: “contra factum non valet argumentum” http://comintelca.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/methods-of-ci-contra-factum-non-valet-argumentum/ welcome@gwethmarshall.com Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:00:24 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: gweth http://comintelca.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/methods-of-ci-contra-factum-non-valet-argumentum/#comment-20 gweth Sun, 11 May 2008 09:51:01 +0000 http://comintelca.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-20 I also like cinema, but this time, my students think that I found somebody stronger than me. Thank you and cheer, dear Richard! Ps: I don't have a car. I like to walk, especially in African forest! I also like cinema, but this time, my students think that I found somebody stronger than me. Thank you and cheer, dear Richard! Ps: I don’t have a car. I like to walk, especially in African forest!

]]> By: Richard McEachin http://comintelca.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/methods-of-ci-contra-factum-non-valet-argumentum/#comment-19 Richard McEachin Sat, 10 May 2008 20:06:38 +0000 http://comintelca.wordpress.com/?p=25#comment-19 I have read the above comments and I think I created a slight problem with my use of language. This is not a case of Contra factum non valet argumentum (Arguments are no good against facts). In the last paragraph I point-out "the terms Competitive Intelligence and Industrial Espionage mean different things to different people." This was the point of my blog post. I am not arguing for either the NA or the French conception of CI. The differences between the two exist, and have for centuries, based upon the development of their respective economies and cultures. You must realise that each side of the Atlantic will refer to the other in pejorative terms as is apparent in the material quoted in the JINSA article. This is the cut and thrust of those seeking advantage both domestically and abroad. Complaining about, or arguing for either conception of CI is pointless. As practitioners, we must deal with the business landscape before us, understand it, and move forward with the task at hand. The practices of rivals are merely part of the business landscape that we must negotiate. I happen to know that Mr. Gweth is not a secret agent and that he doesn't introduce himself as Gweth, Guy Gweth. I'm also certain that his car doesn't have an ejector seat. Richard McEachin www.ConfidentialResource.com I have read the above comments and I think I created a slight problem with my use of language. This is not a case of Contra factum non valet argumentum (Arguments are no good against facts).

In the last paragraph I point-out “the terms Competitive Intelligence and Industrial Espionage mean different things to different people.” This was the point of my blog post.

I am not arguing for either the NA or the French conception of CI. The differences between the two exist, and have for centuries, based upon the development of their respective economies and cultures. You must realise that each side of the Atlantic will refer to the other in pejorative terms as is apparent in the material quoted in the JINSA article. This is the cut and thrust of those seeking advantage both domestically and abroad.

Complaining about, or arguing for either conception of CI is pointless. As practitioners, we must deal with the business landscape before us, understand it, and move forward with the task at hand. The practices of rivals are merely part of the business landscape that we must negotiate.

I happen to know that Mr. Gweth is not a secret agent and that he doesn’t introduce himself as Gweth, Guy Gweth. I’m also certain that his car doesn’t have an ejector seat.

Richard McEachin
http://www.ConfidentialResource.com

]]>