4 ms·

This is an dangerously simplistic analysis. The world doesn't divide into "innovators" on one side and "copycats" on the other side. It would certainly be conv

by Ace17 9y ago

This is an dangerously simplistic analysis. The world doesn't divide into "innovators" on one side and "copycats" on the other side. It would certainly be convenient, but it's simply not the case, especially when it comes to developing software. How would you call a company developing a smartly enhanced version of their competitor's product? A "copinovator"? And by the way: I don't see why anyone would want "higher prices for software" (which seems to be one of your goals). This only looks good if you narrow your vision down to the software you're trying to sell, ignoring the incredibly larger amount of third-party software you're already paying for.

djyaz1200 9y ago
Yes it's simplistic because it's a HN comment not a a doctoral thesis, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. The fact that most software is very cheap favors companies/VC's that already have money... because it means you have to go for scale over margin. That's a game for people with deep pockets. Example. Joe Smith builds innovative software. He sells this to 10 local businesses for $5K/mo each. He is able to take care of his family, hire a couple folks and live the american dream... no VC required. Then someone goes to his website, signs up, studies what he's done and copies this innovative software and sells it for $2.5K/month profitably because they don't have to incur the R&D costs or the lifetime of work experience Joe needed to come up with his innovations. Joe is forced to cut prices dramatically or be out of business. Joe's default path now is he must grow to $200K/month at all costs... sell a portion of his business to VC, then try to grow it to millions a month. Then sell more to VC. Rinse, repeat. This is nuts. People should be able to have innovative businesses that aren't copied and don't have the aim of scaling to infinity to enrich VC's. This is important because unlike other businesses such as construction the marginal cost for providing software is so close to zero you can (and many companies do) round it down to zero. I don't care if any of you agree with me. ...but ask yourself... is the tech landscape serving the guys in the garage right now? If not why not? I believe part of the reason is there is no strong protection for IP anymore. This case was an example of an egregious rip off and the offender was rightly penalized to the tune of $80m, then that penalty was upheld by an appeals court. I think that is a just outcome based on the limited info I have about it... and I am encouraged by the precedent. I hear many of you disagree, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

by Ace17 9y ago

djyaz1200 9y ago

Yes it's simplistic because it's a HN comment not a a doctoral thesis, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. The fact that most software is very cheap favors companies/VC's that already have money... because it means you have to go for scale over margin. That's a game for people with deep pockets. Example. Joe Smith builds innovative software. He sells this to 10 local businesses for $5K/mo each. He is able to take care of his family, hire a couple folks and live the american dream... no VC required. Then someone goes to his website, signs up, studies what he's done and copies this innovative software and sells it for $2.5K/month profitably because they don't have to incur the R&D costs or the lifetime of work experience Joe needed to come up with his innovations. Joe is forced to cut prices dramatically or be out of business. Joe's default path now is he must grow to $200K/month at all costs... sell a portion of his business to VC, then try to grow it to millions a month. Then sell more to VC. Rinse, repeat. This is nuts. People should be able to have innovative businesses that aren't copied and don't have the aim of scaling to infinity to enrich VC's. This is important because unlike other businesses such as construction the marginal cost for providing software is so close to zero you can (and many companies do) round it down to zero. I don't care if any of you agree with me. ...but ask yourself... is the tech landscape serving the guys in the garage right now? If not why not? I believe part of the reason is there is no strong protection for IP anymore. This case was an example of an egregious rip off and the offender was rightly penalized to the tune of $80m, then that penalty was upheld by an appeals court. I think that is a just outcome based on the limited info I have about it... and I am encouraged by the precedent. I hear many of you disagree, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.