3 ms·

> Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. Why not have the best of both worlds a

> Technology once sold as an expensive niche keyboard is now in the hands of tens of millions of people worldwide. Darn. Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. Smaller companies tend to innovate more than bigger ones (yes even Apple). So yes, darn. > How is that innovative? When products do not differentiate, they compete on price, which drives prices down to levels incapable of sustaining any significant innovation. Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. For example, software, unencumbered by patents, has been sustaining (and increasing) significant innovation for quite a while. Also, software does not only compete on price. Also, it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels to just use their position to rake in the cash (like Microsoft and IBM did). It comes down to simple economics. Protectionism hinders innovation.

GHFigs 17y ago
Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? Ask Fingerworks. They could have licensed their technology to other companies if they had wanted to and found other companies willing to agree to their terms. Evidently they found being acquired by Apple to be their best option. And Apple, in possession of the same information, declined to continue participating in that market. I don't see what's wrong with either company acting in its own interests on this. The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it. There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. You're talking about opposed concepts here. Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying. It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate. And they acquired the original patents. Where we the cries of protectionism hindering innovation then? Why was it ok when they were in the way of others using that technology? As I said before: had Fingerworks not been able to secure a patent on its inventions, Apple (or any other company) could have simply copied their technology instead of acquiring them or licensing it. Competitors would clone and drive prices down, established companies with greater manufacturing, marketing, and distribution capabilities would have crushed them in short order. And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees. Is this not a worse scenario for small and innovative companies than the one where they have significant bargaining power? Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. You've ignored the context. You specifically said clones, and I specifically used the word when to indicate that I was talking about some circumstances and not all circumstances. When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates. Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper? Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate? When products do differentiate, innovation flourishes. (At no point was I saying anything like "all products do not differentiate" or "all products only compete on price", as these are obviously untrue.) Note that I say nothing about the size of the company (it doesn't matter) or the value of the differentiation (different doesn't mean good). software, unencumbered by patents There are articles on HN about software patents on a daily basis, and their existence comes up in plenty of stories not directly about them, such as the arguments over HTML5 video codec support, wherein even the "patent free" Theora video format was developed originally by a small company (On2) seeking to profit by licensing its patented technology. You can argue that such innovation might have happened without patents, but you can't argue that they did. Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off. Again, though: I was not talking about software at all, much less software in general. I was talking about hypothetical iPad clones, just as you were. it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them? Doesn't that make it harder for small companies to break into old markets new inventions, when the established players can simply rip those ideas off? Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company? Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention?
- binspace 17y ago
  > The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it. That's good for them. Unfortunately nobody else can enter that market, even if they independently come up with the technology, because there are patents on the multi-touch technology. > Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying. So using a software library or hardware component as a tool to create innovative technology is not innovating? Technology is a tool that is built upon previously developed technology. Being restricted in this way is a hinderance, not a boon. An example of the potential benefits is in open source software. Open source software has dramatically increased the innovation in the software field. > It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate. True they were able to innovate. Kudos. I disagree that they needed patents to innovate, as you have previously stated. It's not like their keyboards came with a clone technology button. Cloning takes effort and time and expertise. It is not the characteristic of a market leader, like Apple. Think about it this way, why does any technology (specifically software) company get acquired by a larger company? Is it the technology or the expertise of the staff that is most important? Usually it's the staff, otherwise, why would it be so important for the staff to stay onboard with the acquiring company? > And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees. Not true. If they wern't bought out by Apple, they would have been a licensor of the technology. They probably would have had a healthy business supplying Apple with iphone/ipad multi-touch technology and making keyboards. However, that deal was significant for Apple because they get significant leverage because they had a shot at a monopoly over the multi-touch technology. Fortunately, this did not happen, but unfortunately there is a bunch of patent litigation waste. > It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies" It has everything to do with smaller companies. Who can afford the large patent warchests? Larger companies. I suppose patent trolls can count as a smaller company, though. > When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates. The same can be said about a monopoly. There is no differentiation because there is only one party. However, that is all moot because electronics and software is hardly in danger of being stagnant. These areas are innovating ever more rapidly (and NOT because of patents). > Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper? Steve Jobs has a good answer for you, and it is not patents. > Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate? Because that is not differentiation. People see right through that. > Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off. First of all a Patent != a Copyright. Patents are far more broad. They prevent people from independently coming up with an innovative technology, especially if a previous patent is overly broad. Copyrights do not. Copyrights prohibit outright copying, which I am against. I wanted to keep the scope of this discussion on patents because the patent system is obviously very flawed. I also question the utility of patents in the first place. I do agree with copyrights, though. > Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them? No because nobody invented the magic cloning button yet. > when the established players can simply rip those ideas off? What's wrong with using other people's ideas? Isn't that why humanity is so advanced? > Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company? No, because like I said before, bigger companies acquire for talent and licensing. There are a number of reasons why bigger companies are less innovative. Lack of ownership among employees is one of them. > Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention? No, it increases it.

GHFigs 17y ago

Why not have the best of both worlds and open up another market? Ask Fingerworks. They could have licensed their technology to other companies if they had wanted to and found other companies willing to agree to their terms. Evidently they found being acquired by Apple to be their best option. And Apple, in possession of the same information, declined to continue participating in that market. I don't see what's wrong with either company acting in its own interests on this. The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it. There's also an opportunity cost, because smaller companies cannot use this technology and innovate. You're talking about opposed concepts here. Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying. It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate. And they acquired the original patents. Where we the cries of protectionism hindering innovation then? Why was it ok when they were in the way of others using that technology? As I said before: had Fingerworks not been able to secure a patent on its inventions, Apple (or any other company) could have simply copied their technology instead of acquiring them or licensing it. Competitors would clone and drive prices down, established companies with greater manufacturing, marketing, and distribution capabilities would have crushed them in short order. And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees. Is this not a worse scenario for small and innovative companies than the one where they have significant bargaining power? Oh, but products do differentiate and technology does improve. You've ignored the context. You specifically said clones, and I specifically used the word when to indicate that I was talking about some circumstances and not all circumstances. When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates. Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper? Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate? When products do differentiate, innovation flourishes. (At no point was I saying anything like "all products do not differentiate" or "all products only compete on price", as these are obviously untrue.) Note that I say nothing about the size of the company (it doesn't matter) or the value of the differentiation (different doesn't mean good). software, unencumbered by patents There are articles on HN about software patents on a daily basis, and their existence comes up in plenty of stories not directly about them, such as the arguments over HTML5 video codec support, wherein even the "patent free" Theora video format was developed originally by a small company (On2) seeking to profit by licensing its patented technology. You can argue that such innovation might have happened without patents, but you can't argue that they did. Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off. Again, though: I was not talking about software at all, much less software in general. I was talking about hypothetical iPad clones, just as you were. it's innovative because companies have to push the envelope and cannot rest on their laurels Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them? Doesn't that make it harder for small companies to break into old markets new inventions, when the established players can simply rip those ideas off? Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company? Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention?

binspace 17y ago
> The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it. That's good for them. Unfortunately nobody else can enter that market, even if they independently come up with the technology, because there are patents on the multi-touch technology. > Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying. So using a software library or hardware component as a tool to create innovative technology is not innovating? Technology is a tool that is built upon previously developed technology. Being restricted in this way is a hinderance, not a boon. An example of the potential benefits is in open source software. Open source software has dramatically increased the innovation in the software field. > It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate. True they were able to innovate. Kudos. I disagree that they needed patents to innovate, as you have previously stated. It's not like their keyboards came with a clone technology button. Cloning takes effort and time and expertise. It is not the characteristic of a market leader, like Apple. Think about it this way, why does any technology (specifically software) company get acquired by a larger company? Is it the technology or the expertise of the staff that is most important? Usually it's the staff, otherwise, why would it be so important for the staff to stay onboard with the acquiring company? > And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees. Not true. If they wern't bought out by Apple, they would have been a licensor of the technology. They probably would have had a healthy business supplying Apple with iphone/ipad multi-touch technology and making keyboards. However, that deal was significant for Apple because they get significant leverage because they had a shot at a monopoly over the multi-touch technology. Fortunately, this did not happen, but unfortunately there is a bunch of patent litigation waste. > It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies" It has everything to do with smaller companies. Who can afford the large patent warchests? Larger companies. I suppose patent trolls can count as a smaller company, though. > When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates. The same can be said about a monopoly. There is no differentiation because there is only one party. However, that is all moot because electronics and software is hardly in danger of being stagnant. These areas are innovating ever more rapidly (and NOT because of patents). > Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper? Steve Jobs has a good answer for you, and it is not patents. > Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate? Because that is not differentiation. People see right through that. > Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off. First of all a Patent != a Copyright. Patents are far more broad. They prevent people from independently coming up with an innovative technology, especially if a previous patent is overly broad. Copyrights do not. Copyrights prohibit outright copying, which I am against. I wanted to keep the scope of this discussion on patents because the patent system is obviously very flawed. I also question the utility of patents in the first place. I do agree with copyrights, though. > Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them? No because nobody invented the magic cloning button yet. > when the established players can simply rip those ideas off? What's wrong with using other people's ideas? Isn't that why humanity is so advanced? > Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company? No, because like I said before, bigger companies acquire for talent and licensing. There are a number of reasons why bigger companies are less innovative. Lack of ownership among employees is one of them. > Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention? No, it increases it.