5 ms·

I cannot agree with you. But that is OK. ;) I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Also "just invent something

I cannot agree with you. But that is OK. ;) I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing.

mindcrime 8y ago
I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on? If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all). Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing. Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.
- Chyzwar 8y ago
  > Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on? Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected by patents and licenses. > If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all). Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design. > Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise. Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R&D profitable but keep pressure for innovation. > Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation. In some cases, you will be forced to provide licenses for you patented technology to prevent monopoly (Qualcomm/DDR). Nowadays is difficult to make any money from new inventions because low hanging fruits are gone.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected by patents and licenses. If patents were the only thing promoting innovation, then nothing would have been invented before patents became available. We already know that isn't the case, so your argument that innovation is a direct result of patents is a bit questionable. OTOH, one could argue (without or without patents) that part of the impetus to innovate (for a company/firm) is "innovate or die". Eg, if your competitors are coming out with newer, better "things" and you aren't, then you are going to die. Or perhaps be reduced to the role of creating cheap knock-offs of inventions created by others, but "fast follower" strategy aside, being the knock-off vendor is usually not the desirable position in the race. Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design. That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing / subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work. That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over copy-cats because they know the "thing" better. Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R&D profitable but keep pressure for innovation. Sure, and I'm saying that doing the equivalent of reducing that time to zero will do the most to create pressure for innovation. Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote, innovation.
    - Chyzwar 8y ago
      It literally cost billions to make any innovation in silicon, pharmaceutics, automotive etc. > That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing / subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work. That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over copy-cats because they know the "thing" better. Licensing only work because you hold patents. Patents are what prevents others from copying ARM ISA. Companies can specialize in what they do best. > Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote, innovation. Patents can be easily invalidated if there is prior art. Patents are not what slows down innovation. Cost of human labor is the most important factor for innovation.

mindcrime 8y ago

I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent. Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on? If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all). Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise. Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing. Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.

Chyzwar 8y ago
> Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on? Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected by patents and licenses. > If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all). Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design. > Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise. Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R&D profitable but keep pressure for innovation. > Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation. In some cases, you will be forced to provide licenses for you patented technology to prevent monopoly (Qualcomm/DDR). Nowadays is difficult to make any money from new inventions because low hanging fruits are gone.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected by patents and licenses. If patents were the only thing promoting innovation, then nothing would have been invented before patents became available. We already know that isn't the case, so your argument that innovation is a direct result of patents is a bit questionable. OTOH, one could argue (without or without patents) that part of the impetus to innovate (for a company/firm) is "innovate or die". Eg, if your competitors are coming out with newer, better "things" and you aren't, then you are going to die. Or perhaps be reduced to the role of creating cheap knock-offs of inventions created by others, but "fast follower" strategy aside, being the knock-off vendor is usually not the desirable position in the race. Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design. That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing / subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work. That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over copy-cats because they know the "thing" better. Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R&D profitable but keep pressure for innovation. Sure, and I'm saying that doing the equivalent of reducing that time to zero will do the most to create pressure for innovation. Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote, innovation.
  - Chyzwar 8y ago
    It literally cost billions to make any innovation in silicon, pharmaceutics, automotive etc. > That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing / subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work. That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over copy-cats because they know the "thing" better. Licensing only work because you hold patents. Patents are what prevents others from copying ARM ISA. Companies can specialize in what they do best. > Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote, innovation. Patents can be easily invalidated if there is prior art. Patents are not what slows down innovation. Cost of human labor is the most important factor for innovation.