4 ms·
Though I don't know much about fashion, I can't help but think that the investment required to think up of a new fashion design must pale in comparison to the i
by Charuru 16y ago
Though I don't know much about fashion, I can't help but think that the investment required to think up of a new fashion design must pale in comparison to the investment required for innovation in other industries. Perhaps years to write a book, millions to shoot a movie, millions to design a chip.
That probably makes all the difference in terms whether or not IP is a socially beneficial system.
- sambeau 16y agoAlthough, as she pointed out, this argument doesn't work for car design
- eagleal 16y agoYou don't buy cars only for their designs. The engine which really is part of what makes the difference (the other one being manufacture material) is patented. And the GPS system (eg. your Navigator), electronic/computer board, and all this things that make you buy a Mercedes instead of a Hyundai, are patented or at least protected by IP. Again she is comparing the "appearance" of the utilitarian market, not the engineering part of it. (You can patent and reinforce a new material for t-shirts which is unbreakable).
- zebra 16y agoIf you are a girl from the Carrie Bradshaw cult it is highly possible that you are buying specific car because you like its color.
- lutorm 16y agoYou don't buy cars only for their designs. Oh I disagree. I think designs matter a lot more to a large fraction of people than you might think. I think luxury cars have much in common with fashion, in the sense that people who would buy a Mercedes would never buy a Hyundai even if it had all those identical IP in it. Once you get above midrange (ie Toyota), a car is much more about status symbols and conspicuous consumption than features. Just like fashion.