4 ms·

A popular feeling is that inventors deserve most of the rewards from their inventions. This is actually quite strange. Inventing is easy - you just find an idea

by Potando 12y ago

A popular feeling is that inventors deserve most of the rewards from their inventions. This is actually quite strange. Inventing is easy - you just find an idea, sit down in your spare time and work out the details for fun, and that's it. But to do business is different - you usually have to spend money before getting any reward and might lose everything you spent. People don't like that. It can also be boring, so they don't do it much. It makes more sense for the lion's share to go to the person doing the work that most people don't want to do. They're the scarce resource, not inventors. I'm sure most people here have put a lot of work into designing/inventing something or other, but wouldn't feel cheated if they found someone else had seen their idea floating around the internet, rebuilt it independently to fit a paying market, done the hard work marketing it, and finally made money off it. Those are the hard bits!

ZenoArrow 12y ago
An inventor might not get the lion's share of the profit made from their invention, however they should at least receive recognition for their contribution. The linked article strongly implies Elizabeth Magie Philips invented the source material for what later became Monopoly. That we've been playing a cut down version of her game is hardly important, recognition is the least we can offer inventors. It's clear that Parker Brothers did what they could to cut her out of the history of the game, I hope that we don't condone that behaviour. I'm interested to try The Landlord's Game, I wonder what the situation with the patents are now.
karmacondon 12y ago
I started to refute this idea with strong reasoning, but then I decided to take the low road and use counter examples. A great business person, Steve Jobs for example, would have a very hard time with a crappy idea. Even he would have struggled if his product were something stupid, like a toaster that sings a song whenever the toast is done as opposed to something as revolutionary as personal computing. Ideas do matter, and having a unique and useful solution to a real problem is an important part of building a company. Every business doesn't require a long slog that involves years of effort and personal financial risk. If an inventor creates something truly amazing, like a hoverboard, it will fly off the shelves despite his or her best efforts to screw it up. Great ideas tend to sell themselves and don't always need years of dedication and hard work once the product itself is finished. And fwiw, the majority of inventions require more than a few hours of thought in someone's spare time. Both idea and execution have equal value, but they don't have to be present in equal proportion as a criteria for success. It's possible build a company with great execution on a mediocre idea or bad execution on a great idea. The best companies are usually balanced between both.

by Potando 12y ago

ZenoArrow 12y ago

An inventor might not get the lion's share of the profit made from their invention, however they should at least receive recognition for their contribution. The linked article strongly implies Elizabeth Magie Philips invented the source material for what later became Monopoly. That we've been playing a cut down version of her game is hardly important, recognition is the least we can offer inventors. It's clear that Parker Brothers did what they could to cut her out of the history of the game, I hope that we don't condone that behaviour. I'm interested to try The Landlord's Game, I wonder what the situation with the patents are now.

karmacondon 12y ago

I started to refute this idea with strong reasoning, but then I decided to take the low road and use counter examples. A great business person, Steve Jobs for example, would have a very hard time with a crappy idea. Even he would have struggled if his product were something stupid, like a toaster that sings a song whenever the toast is done as opposed to something as revolutionary as personal computing. Ideas do matter, and having a unique and useful solution to a real problem is an important part of building a company. Every business doesn't require a long slog that involves years of effort and personal financial risk. If an inventor creates something truly amazing, like a hoverboard, it will fly off the shelves despite his or her best efforts to screw it up. Great ideas tend to sell themselves and don't always need years of dedication and hard work once the product itself is finished. And fwiw, the majority of inventions require more than a few hours of thought in someone's spare time. Both idea and execution have equal value, but they don't have to be present in equal proportion as a criteria for success. It's possible build a company with great execution on a mediocre idea or bad execution on a great idea. The best companies are usually balanced between both.