3 ms·

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 s

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.
- GFischer 15y ago
  What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and we've seen it). I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries do). I'm not sure on how to give the "small guy" a head start without giving him some protection on the idea, but I have a strong opinion that protecting the idea is bad. (I could be wrong, and I'm open to being convinced).
  - anamax 15y ago
    > What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and we've seen it). Are you against protecting all ideas? If not, what kind of ideas do you think should be protectable and how? For example, if I invent a new way to do scheduling - is that something that you're willing to let me protect? If so, how? > I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries do). What kind of protection are you talking about? Copyright? If so, that's useless against a legit big guy because they don't copy.
    - GFischer 15y ago
      Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation. Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be). I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure. See for example: http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4296,00.html http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4296,00.html "Patent No. 5,715,314, for example, gives the holder a monopoly over "network-based sales systems" - we call that e-commerce." (yes, Amazon among others is a licensee) Other horrible examples: http://w2.eff.org/patent/EFF_Patent_Busting_Project.pdf http://w2.eff.org/patent/EFF_Patent_Busting_Project.pdf See also for a broader view, the ideas of economist Friedrich Hayek: http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/ http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/ or, a mainstream view on an industry without copyright, the fashion industry: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-copyrights.html http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-copyright... Another well-known case is of course Coca-Cola, which protects its core formula via trade secret rather than relying on the government. (I am in favor of copyright, and protecting implementations as well - a reduced form of patents). As I mentioned, if it's not obvious, and the big guy requires resources to copy it, they might be better off purchasing the small guy. If it was easy to copy, well, let's hope the small guy's execution was better than big guy's. (I do realize that big guy has an advantage in marketing, etc.)

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.

GFischer 15y ago
What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and we've seen it). I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries do). I'm not sure on how to give the "small guy" a head start without giving him some protection on the idea, but I have a strong opinion that protecting the idea is bad. (I could be wrong, and I'm open to being convinced).
- anamax 15y ago
  > What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and we've seen it). Are you against protecting all ideas? If not, what kind of ideas do you think should be protectable and how? For example, if I invent a new way to do scheduling - is that something that you're willing to let me protect? If so, how? > I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries do). What kind of protection are you talking about? Copyright? If so, that's useless against a legit big guy because they don't copy.
  - GFischer 15y ago
    Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation. Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be). I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure. See for example: http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4296,00.html http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4296,00.html "Patent No. 5,715,314, for example, gives the holder a monopoly over "network-based sales systems" - we call that e-commerce." (yes, Amazon among others is a licensee) Other horrible examples: http://w2.eff.org/patent/EFF_Patent_Busting_Project.pdf http://w2.eff.org/patent/EFF_Patent_Busting_Project.pdf See also for a broader view, the ideas of economist Friedrich Hayek: http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/ http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/ or, a mainstream view on an industry without copyright, the fashion industry: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-copyrights.html http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-copyright... Another well-known case is of course Coca-Cola, which protects its core formula via trade secret rather than relying on the government. (I am in favor of copyright, and protecting implementations as well - a reduced form of patents). As I mentioned, if it's not obvious, and the big guy requires resources to copy it, they might be better off purchasing the small guy. If it was easy to copy, well, let's hope the small guy's execution was better than big guy's. (I do realize that big guy has an advantage in marketing, etc.)