5 ms·

This is one of the reasons why I don't buy the whole concept of "intellectual property": the only thing that should matter is the quality and value provided to

by uriel 15y ago

This is one of the reasons why I don't buy the whole concept of "intellectual property": the only thing that should matter is the quality and value provided to consumers; not marketing, not ideas, not strategy, but the end result, which as many have pointed out before is mostly execution, but whatever the path one gets there, only product standing on its own merits should matter.

danssig 15y ago
So only big companies like google should ever be able to do anything? When a little guy with no resources comes up with a brilliant idea he would try to implement it, the big guys would see it and use their near infinite resources to copy it while adding features and you would be cheering for them? We need to fix intellectual property, not scrap it.
- esrauch 15y ago
  It sounds like you are supporting expanded software patents. That is a huge can of worms, and I am pretty sure it would result in the "big guy" having way more ability to keep the "little guy" down since their expansive software patent portfolios would make it so pretty much any new software would at least arguably infringe something. And just winning the case in the long term wouldn't be good enough if they are able to get an injunction and tie up the courts that would be pretty much the death sentence to any "little guy".
  - danssig 15y ago
    >It sounds like you are supporting expanded software patents. No, I'm not for "expanding", I'm for fixing. The idea of patents was to give the little guy a chance to compete with the bigger players. It has been corrupted into being the exact opposite. I would like a solution to be found that accomplishes the original goal. And no, I don't know how to do it but I'm not convinced that it's impossible. >if they are able to get an injunction and tie up the courts that would be pretty much the death sentence to any "little guy". This strikes me as largely a US problem, not a fundamental one.
    - esrauch 15y ago
      Other countries don't have injunctions? Even if the time to court isn't too long, it'll still be on the order of months which is enough to destroy most small companies. I think the court costs should really be a footnote in this line of discussion though; I think the amount of R&D that big companies do combined with the nature of software patents would make it impossible for any start up to avoid actually infringing on multiple patents. So you could have some great idea for a startup that does something innovative in the social arena; that's not going to help you very much if some big company has patents on things like friend lists or settable profile photos are patented. I'm honestly don't even think that is a "big vs little" company issue; what if Google had patented search engine results weighted by links? What if Twitter had patented broadcast status updates when it was a start up?
- GFischer 15y ago
  If the idea was "nonobvious" it should take some time for the big guy to figure out how to implement it (and it might even end up being cheaper to buy out the small guy). Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself). If a small guy invented the "one click buying" button, should it be protected? Plus, in the end, we all win (if big company popularizes small guy's idea and it makes something better).
  - danssig 15y ago
    >it should take some time for the big guy to figure out how to implement it Not when big company has as many people as big company wants to work on the problem. >If a small guy invented the "one click buying" button, should it be protected? No, of course not. IP does need to be fixed, I said that. >Plus, in the end, we all win (if big company popularizes small guy's idea and it makes something better). No we don't. Most of us may get a slightly better version of something we want, but we would have anyway. And we will have stricken a blow to ones ability to become better off than we started out. Personally I'm for a world where as many people as possible can become financially independent. I utterly despise anything that means that "wage slaves" have to remain such and big companies get even more powerful. $1 million would change the lives of many people on this site but google/apple/MS wouldn't even notice such a relatively small amount.
    - GFischer 15y ago
      Sorry, I was trying to play a little "devil's advocate" but my argument wasn't all that good. "I'm for a world where as many people as possible can become financially independent." So am I, so am I. I'm just not sure how to implement it. BTW, your first point reminds me of an article here on HN on how stuff works in China (and the clones of big US companies): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2449491 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2449491
  - anamax 15y ago
    > If the idea was "nonobvious" Lots of things are obvious in hindsight. > Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself). Huh? Are you suggesting copyright protection on the implementation is enough? If not, what kind of IP protection on the implementation are you suggesting that isn't "idea" protection? > Plus, in the end, we all win I want the little guy trying to become big, because that's how things change. Letting the big guy win every time isn't nearly as good.
- Peaker 15y ago
  Small teams can often move faster, at least in the realm of software, than large companies.
  - danssig 15y ago
    They can change course faster but once the course is known you can get a long way by simply throwing more people at it. Big corps can do this, one man shows cannot.
    - Peaker 15y ago
      I don't know about Google, but my experience working in big corporations gave me the impression that they're extremely slow-moving and tactical. They may have more people to throw at things, but they will almost always prefer tactical over strategical, as all of the managerial chain is judged by quarterly profits. Note how so much of large corporations' innovation is really just the purchase of small start-ups which can think strategically and focus on the right things.
- naner 15y ago
  When a little guy with no resources comes up with a brilliant idea he would try to implement it, the big guys would see it and use their near infinite resources to copy it while adding features and you would be cheering for them? Out of curiosity when has this happened in the startup world? I don't ever hear about anybody registering patents or fending off the big guys. Also easily copy-able ideas can't really be that brilliant, can they? If Google can steal your idea and your customer base easily then that frees you up to work on something more difficult/important.
econgeeker 15y ago
Windows PCs from about 1994 to now have been an example of "only execution matters". The whole industry is commoditized, and the only way to compete is on price. This has produced really low quality, lowest common denominator junk. Since Apple's software was not compatible with the windows market, Apple had to build a culture of innovation. This innovation has served them well. Google seeks to rip off apple's innovation with android (the multi-touch UI, etc.) and sun's innovation by copying java and "giving it away". A lot of people think this is "open" because it is "Free" and because google is open sourcing the code-- why not, they stole the technology in the first place. It doesn't matter that they clean-room duplicated it, they didn't have to incur the cost of discovering it. The result is, predictably, a race to the bottom in quality and price for android handsets. If you want to get rid of patents, ammend the constitution. What I don't hear much from anti-IP people is what they want to replace it with. Have you considered what things will look like when all this technology-- rather than being published openly for everyone to learn from and to use as a starting point for coming up with new things-- becomes a secret that is closely guarded? It seems the anti-IP people want to be able to use other's innovations (Eg: Apple, Sun) but without having to pay the royalties for it that the patent system imposes--- and without also using these patents as a starting point to come up with something new. If android had come up with something genuinely original, then the anti-IP perspective would be undermined by android starting with Apple's IP (Before coming up with something new.) But since google just copied Apple, it sound to me like wanting something for nothing.

by uriel 15y ago

danssig 15y ago

So only big companies like google should ever be able to do anything? When a little guy with no resources comes up with a brilliant idea he would try to implement it, the big guys would see it and use their near infinite resources to copy it while adding features and you would be cheering for them? We need to fix intellectual property, not scrap it.

esrauch 15y ago
It sounds like you are supporting expanded software patents. That is a huge can of worms, and I am pretty sure it would result in the "big guy" having way more ability to keep the "little guy" down since their expansive software patent portfolios would make it so pretty much any new software would at least arguably infringe something. And just winning the case in the long term wouldn't be good enough if they are able to get an injunction and tie up the courts that would be pretty much the death sentence to any "little guy".
- danssig 15y ago
  >It sounds like you are supporting expanded software patents. No, I'm not for "expanding", I'm for fixing. The idea of patents was to give the little guy a chance to compete with the bigger players. It has been corrupted into being the exact opposite. I would like a solution to be found that accomplishes the original goal. And no, I don't know how to do it but I'm not convinced that it's impossible. >if they are able to get an injunction and tie up the courts that would be pretty much the death sentence to any "little guy". This strikes me as largely a US problem, not a fundamental one.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    Other countries don't have injunctions? Even if the time to court isn't too long, it'll still be on the order of months which is enough to destroy most small companies. I think the court costs should really be a footnote in this line of discussion though; I think the amount of R&D that big companies do combined with the nature of software patents would make it impossible for any start up to avoid actually infringing on multiple patents. So you could have some great idea for a startup that does something innovative in the social arena; that's not going to help you very much if some big company has patents on things like friend lists or settable profile photos are patented. I'm honestly don't even think that is a "big vs little" company issue; what if Google had patented search engine results weighted by links? What if Twitter had patented broadcast status updates when it was a start up?
GFischer 15y ago
If the idea was "nonobvious" it should take some time for the big guy to figure out how to implement it (and it might even end up being cheaper to buy out the small guy). Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself). If a small guy invented the "one click buying" button, should it be protected? Plus, in the end, we all win (if big company popularizes small guy's idea and it makes something better).
- danssig 15y ago
  >it should take some time for the big guy to figure out how to implement it Not when big company has as many people as big company wants to work on the problem. >If a small guy invented the "one click buying" button, should it be protected? No, of course not. IP does need to be fixed, I said that. >Plus, in the end, we all win (if big company popularizes small guy's idea and it makes something better). No we don't. Most of us may get a slightly better version of something we want, but we would have anyway. And we will have stricken a blow to ones ability to become better off than we started out. Personally I'm for a world where as many people as possible can become financially independent. I utterly despise anything that means that "wage slaves" have to remain such and big companies get even more powerful. $1 million would change the lives of many people on this site but google/apple/MS wouldn't even notice such a relatively small amount.
  - GFischer 15y ago
    Sorry, I was trying to play a little "devil's advocate" but my argument wasn't all that good. "I'm for a world where as many people as possible can become financially independent." So am I, so am I. I'm just not sure how to implement it. BTW, your first point reminds me of an article here on HN on how stuff works in China (and the clones of big US companies): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2449491 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2449491
- anamax 15y ago
  > If the idea was "nonobvious" Lots of things are obvious in hindsight. > Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself). Huh? Are you suggesting copyright protection on the implementation is enough? If not, what kind of IP protection on the implementation are you suggesting that isn't "idea" protection? > Plus, in the end, we all win I want the little guy trying to become big, because that's how things change. Letting the big guy win every time isn't nearly as good.
Peaker 15y ago
Small teams can often move faster, at least in the realm of software, than large companies.
- danssig 15y ago
  They can change course faster but once the course is known you can get a long way by simply throwing more people at it. Big corps can do this, one man shows cannot.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    I don't know about Google, but my experience working in big corporations gave me the impression that they're extremely slow-moving and tactical. They may have more people to throw at things, but they will almost always prefer tactical over strategical, as all of the managerial chain is judged by quarterly profits. Note how so much of large corporations' innovation is really just the purchase of small start-ups which can think strategically and focus on the right things.
naner 15y ago
When a little guy with no resources comes up with a brilliant idea he would try to implement it, the big guys would see it and use their near infinite resources to copy it while adding features and you would be cheering for them? Out of curiosity when has this happened in the startup world? I don't ever hear about anybody registering patents or fending off the big guys. Also easily copy-able ideas can't really be that brilliant, can they? If Google can steal your idea and your customer base easily then that frees you up to work on something more difficult/important.

econgeeker 15y ago

Windows PCs from about 1994 to now have been an example of "only execution matters". The whole industry is commoditized, and the only way to compete is on price. This has produced really low quality, lowest common denominator junk. Since Apple's software was not compatible with the windows market, Apple had to build a culture of innovation. This innovation has served them well. Google seeks to rip off apple's innovation with android (the multi-touch UI, etc.) and sun's innovation by copying java and "giving it away". A lot of people think this is "open" because it is "Free" and because google is open sourcing the code-- why not, they stole the technology in the first place. It doesn't matter that they clean-room duplicated it, they didn't have to incur the cost of discovering it. The result is, predictably, a race to the bottom in quality and price for android handsets. If you want to get rid of patents, ammend the constitution. What I don't hear much from anti-IP people is what they want to replace it with. Have you considered what things will look like when all this technology-- rather than being published openly for everyone to learn from and to use as a starting point for coming up with new things-- becomes a secret that is closely guarded? It seems the anti-IP people want to be able to use other's innovations (Eg: Apple, Sun) but without having to pay the royalties for it that the patent system imposes--- and without also using these patents as a starting point to come up with something new. If android had come up with something genuinely original, then the anti-IP perspective would be undermined by android starting with Apple's IP (Before coming up with something new.) But since google just copied Apple, it sound to me like wanting something for nothing.