3 ms·

Back in my day, copying a competitor's feature was denounced as ripping off. Just because it's institutionalized as a "hack" is no reason for assigning it much

• dctoedt 15y ago
  > Back in my day, copying a competitor's feature was denounced as ripping off. Going all the way back to the Founders, U.S. law has encouraged copying competitors' (publicly-known, unpatented) useful features. The rationale is that society benefits as a whole when better ways of doing things get put into practice as widely and as quickly as possible. A second-order benefit is that the prospect of being "ripped off" encourages innovators to keep innovating instead of resting on their laurels. A worthwhile read on this point is the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats [1], in which the Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Florida statute prohibiting plug-mold copying of boat hulls. The Court said, in part, that "imitation and refinement through imitation are both necessary to invention itself, and the very lifeblood of a competitive economy." The only permissible restrictions on copying of publicly-known useful articles, said the justices, are those of federal patent law, which have been crafted by Congress to strike a nationally-uniform balance between the interests of inventors and those of the rest of society. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/141/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/141/case.html
  • yid 15y ago
    I'm not saying it's "bad" to rip off, just that it's not newsworthy.