3 ms·

Companies that consider themselves in a growth phase take an anti intellectual property stance. Once they are sitting on an empire they shift positions. Its the

by dman 15y ago

Companies that consider themselves in a growth phase take an anti intellectual property stance. Once they are sitting on an empire they shift positions. Its the rational thing to do. All this says about Google is that they are still looking to enter and disrupt new markets.

Steko 15y ago
I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.
- dman 15y ago
  I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "I did not say anything about size of business." Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
    - dman 15y ago
      Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'. Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away. On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate. I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
- kelnos 15y ago
  Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP. Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Ok so I'll cite some supporting evidence: http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ "Whenever creating an imitation of a successful leader, great care must be taken to avoid outright intellectual property infringement; the closer the duplication, the greater the care which must be exercised. MGA Entertainment (MGA), which produced the Bratz dolls, learned this the hard way. Late in 2008, U.S. Courts forced MGA to cease and desist in the manufacture of the dolls. A jury deemed that the creator of Bratz, Carter Bryant, devised the idea while he was an employee at Mattel. In the Spring of 2009, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the jury decision, mandating that the intellectual property associated with Bratz dolls was the sole property of Mattel."
    - kelnos 15y ago
      Making a blanket statement about all innovators and all followers is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. A reference to a single court case between a pair of companies hardly passes that bar. Regardless, reading your linked article, it seems to have a pretty positive (or at least neutral) view of being a so-called "follower". It's interesting to point out the NKOTB-follower groups like Backstreet Boys and 'NSync. Regardless of whether or not you like their music, it's hard to deny that they were hugely successful and helped push the "boyband" genre of music into greater popularity. Not saying this is good or bad from an aesthetic point of view, but it sounds good from a business perspective.
      - Steko 15y ago
        It seems fairly intuitive to me that innovations are protected by IP so innovators are always for stronger IP protections and wheras followers are always trying to skirt close to the line of infringement without passing it, and thus are disposed towards weaker penalties towards infringement. I'm surprised at the level of disagreement this assertion has provoked. How much evidence do you really want? Are the Chinese vendors hawking illegal Harry Potter books for or against greater penalties in China for violating IP? Are the fake Apple stores and fake iPhone "KIRF" makers for or against greater IP penalties? I mean I guess this classification loses value when you start talking about companies like Zynga that both steal and are stolen from (today's injunction). And that probably applies to Apple and many other large businesses but it seems to me that most of these companies put up a fight but ultimately accept that they have to pay for many things -- as Apple did with Amazon's One Click or the IP they buy or the Nokia settlement. OTOH Google seems to have adopted something scarily close to the Chinese pirate model.

by dman 15y ago

Steko 15y ago

I'd say the dynamic is more complicated, many small businesses are highly reliant on IP protections. Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP.

dman 15y ago
I did not say anything about size of business. I think a better framing of your latter point would be - incumbents are pro-IP newcomers are contra-IP. Just being first in a field does not mean that you are innovating in it currently.
- Steko 15y ago
  "I did not say anything about size of business." Well 'empire' has some connotations you may not be aware of.
  - dman 15y ago
    Sorry about that, I can now see how I miscommunicated. I was lazily using empire to allude to - 'an economic entity with a well defined identity and well defined borders'. Let me take an example to clarify this situation - Lets assume a hypothetical situation where Nokia has reached its limits of what it thinks a Phone could be it has stopped doing fundamental innovation ie it has a well defined empire with a well defined cost structure and a well defined revenue model. In such a situation it is in Nokia's self interest to use their immense patent portfolio to create a moat around their business to keep upstarts like Apple / Google away. On the other hand lets consider another hypothetical situation where Nokia were innovating and trying to reimagine what a phone could be. Perhaps they were doing interesting things in software to displace desktops and make the phone the central location of the users global state. In this case they would be encroaching onto areas where other entities (like Microsoft, Google) might hold significant patents. In this case it would be in Nokia's self interest to be the anti patent candidate. I have often found that when I use more words to clarify a miscommunication I often end up causing more damage. I hope that is not the case here.
kelnos 15y ago
Innovators are pro-IP, followers are contra-IP. Strongly disagree. This kind of statement really needs some supporting evidence.
- Steko 15y ago
  Ok so I'll cite some supporting evidence: http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ http://infochachkie.com/fast-followers-i/ "Whenever creating an imitation of a successful leader, great care must be taken to avoid outright intellectual property infringement; the closer the duplication, the greater the care which must be exercised. MGA Entertainment (MGA), which produced the Bratz dolls, learned this the hard way. Late in 2008, U.S. Courts forced MGA to cease and desist in the manufacture of the dolls. A jury deemed that the creator of Bratz, Carter Bryant, devised the idea while he was an employee at Mattel. In the Spring of 2009, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the jury decision, mandating that the intellectual property associated with Bratz dolls was the sole property of Mattel."
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Making a blanket statement about all innovators and all followers is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. A reference to a single court case between a pair of companies hardly passes that bar. Regardless, reading your linked article, it seems to have a pretty positive (or at least neutral) view of being a so-called "follower". It's interesting to point out the NKOTB-follower groups like Backstreet Boys and 'NSync. Regardless of whether or not you like their music, it's hard to deny that they were hugely successful and helped push the "boyband" genre of music into greater popularity. Not saying this is good or bad from an aesthetic point of view, but it sounds good from a business perspective.
    - Steko 15y ago
      It seems fairly intuitive to me that innovations are protected by IP so innovators are always for stronger IP protections and wheras followers are always trying to skirt close to the line of infringement without passing it, and thus are disposed towards weaker penalties towards infringement. I'm surprised at the level of disagreement this assertion has provoked. How much evidence do you really want? Are the Chinese vendors hawking illegal Harry Potter books for or against greater penalties in China for violating IP? Are the fake Apple stores and fake iPhone "KIRF" makers for or against greater IP penalties? I mean I guess this classification loses value when you start talking about companies like Zynga that both steal and are stolen from (today's injunction). And that probably applies to Apple and many other large businesses but it seems to me that most of these companies put up a fight but ultimately accept that they have to pay for many things -- as Apple did with Amazon's One Click or the IP they buy or the Nokia settlement. OTOH Google seems to have adopted something scarily close to the Chinese pirate model.