3 ms·

AT&T developed the transistor, but it was government pressure that prompted AT&T to release control of its patents on the invention, and it was licensees like M

AT&T developed the transistor, but it was government pressure that prompted AT&T to release control of its patents on the invention, and it was licensees like Motorola, Texas Instruments, and Fairchild (which gave birth to Intel) that did the bulk of the work in the transistor market. AT&T wasn't even sure what to do with it; they were just looking for something better than the vacuum tube. The Alto was first built in 1973, but was used only internally at Xerox and was never made into a commercial product. Meanwhile, a loose-knit Homebrew Computer Club had among its members two guys named Steve. It was a visit to Xerox by one of them, in 1979 -- a full six years after the initial release of the Alto -- that led to the beginning of the modern graphical interface. Microsoft began developing multi-touch technology in 2001, but it was the iPhone, in 2007, that won the market. Rumors of Microsoft's wall-mounted multitouch displays predate Apple's products, but it was Apple that figured out how to get the products into customers' hands. What has happened to the PC is that it has become mature. This happens to all technologies. Modern automobiles are not very different from their 1950s counterparts -- just more refined. Refinements in PC technology however has led to things like the Raspberry Pi and a second-generation community of electronics tinkerers. Not to belabor the point, but the automobile was also patent-encumbered, and it was the development of better production techniques (the moving assembly line, by Ford), that made the automobile accessible to large numbers of people. The fundamental problem of product development is that those most suited to inventing things are usually not also those most suited to bring a product to market.

rayiner 12y ago
I don't see where we disagree. Bringing a product to market isn't innovation in the way developing something new is. You can't bring products to market using technogies that don't exist, and history has shown that monopolies are a fertile ground for developing such technologies. Your Microsoft example is consistent with the ones I presented, so is Intel. Intel heavily relies on trade secrets to ensure that its competitors don't have access to its fabrication technology. > The fundamental problem of product development is that those most suited to inventing things are usually not also those most suited to bring a product to market. This is absolutely true. So how do you ensure that inventors get adequately compensated when people bring their ideas to the market, backed up by tight outsourced supply chains and heaps of marketing?
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  > Bringing a product to market isn't innovation in the way developing something new is. I think this is where we disagree. I view the technology of production as equally (but not more) important to the success of a new product -- where success means, "in the hands of as many people as possible". I have a poor view of the importance (and therefore value) of inventions that never reach their markets. Dean Kamen is a great example here; he's an inarguably brilliant man who's developed new technology in a stunning number of fields -- a far better inventor than Musk -- but Deka, the company, consistently struggles to get the technologies to market, so Musk is having a far greater impact on humanity. > Intel heavily relies on trade secrets to ensure that its competitors don't have access to its fabrication technology. And I read this part as supporting that point. Intel's processor technology is certainly valuable, but to Intel, its production technology is even more valuable. I don't know how to ensure that inventors are treated fairly. Perhaps this is one of those things that requires a cultural shift, where inventors begin to realize that an invention without accompanying developments in production technology is not worth very much. That's why I'm excited by what Tesla is doing. I hope that this is another step in that direction.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

I don't see where we disagree. Bringing a product to market isn't innovation in the way developing something new is. You can't bring products to market using technogies that don't exist, and history has shown that monopolies are a fertile ground for developing such technologies. Your Microsoft example is consistent with the ones I presented, so is Intel. Intel heavily relies on trade secrets to ensure that its competitors don't have access to its fabrication technology. > The fundamental problem of product development is that those most suited to inventing things are usually not also those most suited to bring a product to market. This is absolutely true. So how do you ensure that inventors get adequately compensated when people bring their ideas to the market, backed up by tight outsourced supply chains and heaps of marketing?

thaumaturgy 12y ago
> Bringing a product to market isn't innovation in the way developing something new is. I think this is where we disagree. I view the technology of production as equally (but not more) important to the success of a new product -- where success means, "in the hands of as many people as possible". I have a poor view of the importance (and therefore value) of inventions that never reach their markets. Dean Kamen is a great example here; he's an inarguably brilliant man who's developed new technology in a stunning number of fields -- a far better inventor than Musk -- but Deka, the company, consistently struggles to get the technologies to market, so Musk is having a far greater impact on humanity. > Intel heavily relies on trade secrets to ensure that its competitors don't have access to its fabrication technology. And I read this part as supporting that point. Intel's processor technology is certainly valuable, but to Intel, its production technology is even more valuable. I don't know how to ensure that inventors are treated fairly. Perhaps this is one of those things that requires a cultural shift, where inventors begin to realize that an invention without accompanying developments in production technology is not worth very much. That's why I'm excited by what Tesla is doing. I hope that this is another step in that direction.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]