Ideas are not Property

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:23 pm

Rusty wrote:

No I don't think it needs to be a commodity. It may be a nice complement to an existing product. Or it may leverage other new product development in other companies. Or it may indeed be a commodity. I don't see any compelling reason to limit it to one or the other. I agree with you on Industrial buyers. They do buy differently but they are also more risk averse. They really need a lot of compelling reasons to take on the products from a startup. Supplier company stability, established support etc tend to play big. But I've seen examples where the product is so compelling that they take on the risk and even invest to develop the little company.

On the limited flexibility, I think that occurs with the big pipe manufacturers too. So yes, serious innovation may even be resisted from within.

Is this all you're going to do? Comment on the credibility of my examples? You're not going to develop your own example? I'd really like to see an example. C'mon be brave! Cobble something together and let's look at it.

I used to be a product manager and I had $2M /yr budget and a big development staff. I got along well with the development group. We used to come up with really interesting nice improvements. And we had some real customer interest. But we often had trouble showing that revenue would flow from the investment. This happens a lot. Some of them even happened in other startup companies! Which always angered us. The fact is that to invest we had to show a business case and satisfaction really didn't go very far in getting authority to spend the money.

Let's say I'm a carpenter and I make bookcases or cabinets or something. At some point I devise a new technique for joining boards that saves time or wood or labor. Let's say for every 1 unit I make and sell, IKEA's suppliers produce 100,000. Let's say they find out about my technique and implement it. Let's say with the innovation I can now produce twice as many units as before, and given their scale, IKEA's suppliers can now produce 2.5 times as many, dropping their unit cost accordingly. According to your rules I'd be due some part of every one of IKEA's sales.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:25 pm

infidel wrote:

Rusty wrote:

What would be the motivation for innovation?

Seriously? This is the problem we have today, our thinking is so absolutely skewed in one direction that people can't even imagine innovation occurring without IP law. The motivation for innovation is solving a problem or improving something so it works better for you. The fashion industry thrives despite a lack of IP protection.

infidel wrote:

Rusty wrote:

I think there are a lot of accidents. But to have a happy accident one has to innovate and there needs to be an incentive.

Invention is usually its own incentive. Solving a problem. You keep implying that the only viable incentive is commercial success.

Really? In my world, innovation is driven by a desire to make money. You can copy others ideas all day long around your house - nobody cares. It's only when you try to market someone else idea that you run afoul of IP laws.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:50 pm

FredS wrote:

In my world, innovation is driven by a desire to make money. You can copy others ideas all day long around your house - nobody cares. It's only when you try to market someone else idea that you run afoul of IP laws.

If you ask me that further weakens the IP argument. If its your property then I've either stolen it or I haven't, no?

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:52 pm

infidel wrote:

Let's say I'm a carpenter and I make bookcases or cabinets or something. At some point I devise a new technique for joining boards that saves time or wood or labor. Let's say for every 1 unit I make and sell, IKEA's suppliers produce 100,000. Let's say they find out about my technique and implement it. Let's say with the innovation I can now produce twice as many units as before, and given their scale, IKEA's suppliers can now produce 2.5 times as many, dropping their unit cost accordingly. According to your rules I'd be due some part of every one of IKEA's sales.

It sounds like both you and Ikea can be happy, doesn't it?
If I was Ikea I'd call you up and see what else I could get out of you but I'm not authorized to offer you anything in return. So I'm going to sweet talk you and try to get you to keep quiet about the improvement so that Ikea's competitors don't learn about it.

What's completely missing is commercial context.
Do you supply Ikea? Does Ikea compete with you? If not to both then OK if that makes you happy fine. This is a happy accident and there is no commercial interlock that involves both. And because you don't compete with them and you don't supply them you can feel that you've accomplished something for someone else.

It's a special case with no commercial interlock.

Let's add some commercial context that you might not like and see what you want to do with that.

Imagine that your cabinets are premium products and your joining technique is in fact a new implementation that looks like a forgotten 17th C technique. Ikea not only takes your technique but they startt producing cabinets that compete with yours. And the price of theirs is 1/8th of yours. You still have a premium product but now Ikea's looks a bit more like yours. Over the next year you start losing sales. Ikea has enlarged their addressable market - their product now has broader appeal and they're eating your sales. It's not only a cost-improvement but gets them more market. It may be that there are a lot of other cabinet makers like you that are impacted too. What you need to do is create a new product that isn't like Ikea's and it probably doesn't use your signature joining technique. You've got to create a new market. This is more realistic. How do you feel now? You aren't by any chance an Ikea stockholder are you?

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:56 pm

Zed wrote:

This is more provocative:

And your point system automatically goes up one if you get an "Office Spaces" reference in your post (picture or otherwise).

G.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:02 pm

Rusty wrote:

infidel wrote:

Let's say I'm a carpenter and I make bookcases or cabinets or something. At some point I devise a new technique for joining boards that saves time or wood or labor. Let's say for every 1 unit I make and sell, IKEA's suppliers produce 100,000. Let's say they find out about my technique and implement it. Let's say with the innovation I can now produce twice as many units as before, and given their scale, IKEA's suppliers can now produce 2.5 times as many, dropping their unit cost accordingly. According to your rules I'd be due some part of every one of IKEA's sales.

It sounds like both you and Ikea can be happy, doesn't it?
If I was Ikea I'd call you up and see what else I could get out of you but I'm not authorized to offer you anything in return. So I'm going to sweet talk you and try to get you to keep quiet about the improvement so that Ikea's competitors don't learn about it.

What's completely missing is commercial context.
Do you supply Ikea? Does Ikea compete with you? If not to both then OK if that makes you happy fine. This is a happy accident and there is no commercial interlock that involves both. And because you don't compete with them and you don't supply them you can feel that you've accomplished something for someone else.

It's a special case with no commercial interlock.

Let's add some commercial context that you might not like and see what you want to do with that.

Imagine that your cabinets are premium products and your joining technique is in fact a new implementation that looks like a forgotten 17th C technique. Ikea not only takes your technique but they startt producing cabinets that compete with yours. And the price of theirs is 1/8th of yours. You still have a premium product but now Ikea's looks a bit more like yours. Over the next year you start losing sales. Ikea has enlarged their addressable market - their product now has broader appeal and they're eating your sales. It's not only a cost-improvement but gets them more market. It may be that there are a lot of other cabinet makers like you that are impacted too. What you need to do is create a new product that isn't like Ikea's and it probably doesn't use your signature joining technique. You've got to create a new market. This is more realistic. How do you feel now? You aren't by any chance an Ikea stockholder are you?

These what-if games are kind of silly, really. There are infinite variables we can each mix in to constantly skew the idea one way or another.

According to Fred its only "theft" if the "thief" tries to make money off the idea. And you're saying it only matters if I lose market share, or maybe it only counts if I'm in actual competition with them. Does it only count if I'm the little guy? How much littler? What if IKEA and I have the market split 50/50. We both implement the idea and we're still 50/50.

See, the problem (as with any other central planning) is that you have to keep adding conditions and contexts and exceptions and allowances and deductions and credits and it just becomes a complete mess of rules and loopholes and redtape and at the end of the day what has been accomplished?

I do not own stock in IKEA.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:05 pm

infidel wrote:

Rusty wrote:

infidel wrote:

Let's say I'm a carpenter and I make bookcases or cabinets or something. At some point I devise a new technique for joining boards that saves time or wood or labor. Let's say for every 1 unit I make and sell, IKEA's suppliers produce 100,000. Let's say they find out about my technique and implement it. Let's say with the innovation I can now produce twice as many units as before, and given their scale, IKEA's suppliers can now produce 2.5 times as many, dropping their unit cost accordingly. According to your rules I'd be due some part of every one of IKEA's sales.

It sounds like both you and Ikea can be happy, doesn't it?
If I was Ikea I'd call you up and see what else I could get out of you but I'm not authorized to offer you anything in return. So I'm going to sweet talk you and try to get you to keep quiet about the improvement so that Ikea's competitors don't learn about it.

What's completely missing is commercial context.
Do you supply Ikea? Does Ikea compete with you? If not to both then OK if that makes you happy fine. This is a happy accident and there is no commercial interlock that involves both. And because you don't compete with them and you don't supply them you can feel that you've accomplished something for someone else.

It's a special case with no commercial interlock.

Let's add some commercial context that you might not like and see what you want to do with that.

Imagine that your cabinets are premium products and your joining technique is in fact a new implementation that looks like a forgotten 17th C technique. Ikea not only takes your technique but they startt producing cabinets that compete with yours. And the price of theirs is 1/8th of yours. You still have a premium product but now Ikea's looks a bit more like yours. Over the next year you start losing sales. Ikea has enlarged their addressable market - their product now has broader appeal and they're eating your sales. It's not only a cost-improvement but gets them more market. It may be that there are a lot of other cabinet makers like you that are impacted too. What you need to do is create a new product that isn't like Ikea's and it probably doesn't use your signature joining technique. You've got to create a new market. This is more realistic. How do you feel now? You aren't by any chance an Ikea stockholder are you?

These what-if games are kind of silly, really. There are infinite variables we can each mix in to constantly skew the idea one way or another.

According to Fred its only "theft" if the "thief" tries to make money off the idea. And you're saying it only matters if I lose market share, or maybe it only counts if I'm in actual competition with them. Does it only count if I'm the little guy? How much littler? What if IKEA and I have the market split 50/50. We both implement the idea and we're still 50/50.

See, the problem (as with any other central planning) is that you have to keep adding conditions and contexts and exceptions and allowances and deductions and credits and it just becomes a complete mess of rules and loopholes and redtape and at the end of the day what has been accomplished?

I do not own stock in IKEA.

So you'd prefer to get rid of IP and see what happens?

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:14 pm

isaac wrote:

So you'd prefer to get rid of IP and see what happens?

Ideally, yes. In practical terms, first I'd like for them to stop extending Copyright and absolutely stop issuing patents on software and business processes.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:15 pm

infidel wrote:

isaac wrote:

So you'd prefer to get rid of IP and see what happens?

Ideally, yes. In practical terms, first I'd like for them to stop extending Copyright and absolutely stop issuing patents on software and business processes.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:31 pm

isaac wrote:

infidel wrote:

isaac wrote:

So you'd prefer to get rid of IP and see what happens?

Ideally, yes. In practical terms, first I'd like for them to stop extending Copyright and absolutely stop issuing patents on software and business processes.

Um... what?

Here's a field of software only. You want to allow theft of code from one company to another with no protection?

Quote:

June 6, 2002: merger with Avanti Corporation, USA. Avanti was founded when several ex-Cadence employees bought the startup ArcSys. Avanti merged with ISS gaining Hercules its DRC/LVC tool (including 3D silicon structure modeling), then bought Compass Design Automation, which had fully integrated IC Design Flow and ASIC Libraries, especially its place and route tool, which Avanti reworked to create Saturn and Apollo II; and it also bought TMA which brought their pioneering TCAD and Proteus Optical proximity correction tools. This was, by far, Synopsys' most significant and controversial acquisition. At the time Avanti was the #4 company in the EDA industry, and was struggling with a major lawsuit from Cadence for software theft.[8] The criminal case had just concluded, with Avanti executives pleading no contest to trade-secret theft, conspiracy to commit trade-secret theft, receiving stolen property, and securities fraud, and several receiving jail time. To acquire Avanti, Synopsys paid about $55 million in golden handshake payments to these same executives. Synopsys then paid an additional $265 million to Cadence to settle the remaining civil suit and $26.1 million to Silvaco to settle two of three Silvaco's suits against Meta Software and its President filed in 1995 and inherited by Avanti [9]

These guys stole the basis of the code-- comments unchanged in the code against the original. They admitted it. It was wrong and they became the major competitor to whom they stole from.

Very expensive issues to resolve because they stole other people's hard work.

Except in infidel's book where the losses and stealing would be 'meh'... oh well.

The software can run hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single copy-- it's the basis for these company's livelihood.

Chip design in infidel's view can go away because software should be free (or stolen and cheapened into a commodity) and you get what you pay for. Not to mention the IP involved in the chips-- Qualcomm, ARM, etc. should just not waste their time developing special technologies like CDMA and ARM processors?

I'm really at a loss with this attitude because manufacturing is not America's strength right now. Ideas and innovation are. America has some of the top R&D and engineering. If we don't try to protect that then .... then... then what?!?!

I'll be thinking like Kerdy's recent thoughts. Down the tubes. Start reading Isaiah because we'll be conquered and taken into captivity and seeking God's comfort for when we might come out of it.... except we aren't Israel (as a nation) but we do have Jesus.

Yikes.

Me thinketh the infidel is speaking out of his arse and doesn't know how much he stinketh in his proposition!

G.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:51 pm

infidel wrote:

Rusty wrote:

infidel wrote:

Let's say I'm a carpenter and I make bookcases or cabinets or something. At some point I devise a new technique for joining boards that saves time or wood or labor. Let's say for every 1 unit I make and sell, IKEA's suppliers produce 100,000. Let's say they find out about my technique and implement it. Let's say with the innovation I can now produce twice as many units as before, and given their scale, IKEA's suppliers can now produce 2.5 times as many, dropping their unit cost accordingly. According to your rules I'd be due some part of every one of IKEA's sales.

It sounds like both you and Ikea can be happy, doesn't it?
If I was Ikea I'd call you up and see what else I could get out of you but I'm not authorized to offer you anything in return. So I'm going to sweet talk you and try to get you to keep quiet about the improvement so that Ikea's competitors don't learn about it.

What's completely missing is commercial context.
Do you supply Ikea? Does Ikea compete with you? If not to both then OK if that makes you happy fine. This is a happy accident and there is no commercial interlock that involves both. And because you don't compete with them and you don't supply them you can feel that you've accomplished something for someone else.

It's a special case with no commercial interlock.

Let's add some commercial context that you might not like and see what you want to do with that.

Imagine that your cabinets are premium products and your joining technique is in fact a new implementation that looks like a forgotten 17th C technique. Ikea not only takes your technique but they startt producing cabinets that compete with yours. And the price of theirs is 1/8th of yours. You still have a premium product but now Ikea's looks a bit more like yours. Over the next year you start losing sales. Ikea has enlarged their addressable market - their product now has broader appeal and they're eating your sales. It's not only a cost-improvement but gets them more market. It may be that there are a lot of other cabinet makers like you that are impacted too. What you need to do is create a new product that isn't like Ikea's and it probably doesn't use your signature joining technique. You've got to create a new market. This is more realistic. How do you feel now? You aren't by any chance an Ikea stockholder are you?

These what-if games are kind of silly, really. There are infinite variables we can each mix in to constantly skew the idea one way or another.

According to Fred its only "theft" if the "thief" tries to make money off the idea. And you're saying it only matters if I lose market share, or maybe it only counts if I'm in actual competition with them. Does it only count if I'm the little guy? How much littler? What if IKEA and I have the market split 50/50. We both implement the idea and we're still 50/50.

See, the problem (as with any other central planning) is that you have to keep adding conditions and contexts and exceptions and allowances and deductions and credits and it just becomes a complete mess of rules and loopholes and redtape and at the end of the day what has been accomplished?

I do not own stock in IKEA.

I don't think it's silly. The idea that Ikea and the carpenter are 'ships in the night' ie there is no commercial interlock whatsoever is really a very special case. It's very hard to ensure that remains the case when both are in the furniture business, especially if they are borrowing ideas from each other (either direction). And please note that I haven't assumed any IP and no protection for IP. This is one of the consequences. You can see that it can go very wrong for small guy very quickly. Ikea may not even intend this to be the consequence and because there is no commercial agreement there is no compensation for your loss. And it is your loss not theirs. They saved a lot of money and increased their market space - that's doing very well - thank you Mr. Carpenter!
This sort of thing does happen all the time. Price really does send a very strong message to the buyer. If the products look similar enough the price eventually over-rides the other differentiators. The small guy ends up trying to redefine his business in many cases. It doesn't have to be exact. Why do you think small family biz live in terror of the big box stores coming to town? They cannot hope to match the big boxes buying power so they can't compete on price at all. When the big box comes to town they might as well move or redefine their biz so that it is not covered by the big box stores or they have such a terrific product differentiation that they can survive. That's their only choice. This is similar to the situation for the poor carpenter.

Now consider the carpenter alternative with IP and a patent owned by the carpenter. He licenses Ikea to use his process. At the very least the commercial agreement needs to cover the risk of biz loss that he assumes by letting them use his improvement. More likely it's a percentage of Ikea's savings which is much larger. There is a business case for Ikea too. This is the kind of thing that is a no brainer. Big companies run these biz cases to decide where to invest and if it's a good deal it passes - believe me. It's win-win. Why shouldn't there be a case for the poor carpenter whose biz is really dependent on his improvement?

Without a commercial context it's impossible to talk about these things because they are commercial issues. So they impact businesses directly.

When the IP-less crowd say that ideas are not property they'd really rather have the industry fight it out on product merit. They're saying that ideas should be worthless. The one who produces the best product for the lowest cost is going to win. It's pure competition. The others will come back and try again or maybe they'll go away. Others will take their place. The process will ween the producers out in competition. They don't care about an individual business. It doesn't matter. The hope is that completely unfettered competition will result in the best manufacturer producing the best product. And the others struggling to produce the best one the next time around.
What's wrong with that? There is no room for any entrepreneur. They simply do not have the size to compete. For those industries that are labour intensive the jobs go to the lowest cost places. India, China, etc. And that is perfect if you stand back and want to equalize the standard of living in the world. There is a lot of merit for a libertarian lawyer.

Are ideas scarce? Haven't you had many ideas that could be turned into products worth millions? The idea is not really worthless to anybody and it is scarce. It's always scarce.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:58 pm

gaining_age wrote:

Yikes.

Me thinketh the infidel is speaking out of his arse and doesn't know how much he stinketh in his proposition!

I would've said the same thing few years back.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:00 pm

infidel wrote:

gaining_age wrote:

Yikes.

Me thinketh the infidel is speaking out of his arse and doesn't know how much he stinketh in his proposition!

I would've said the same thing few years back.

What changed?

I'm not seeing it in software and hardware (chip design, etc.).

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:42 pm

gaining_age wrote:

infidel wrote:

gaining_age wrote:

Yikes.

Me thinketh the infidel is speaking out of his arse and doesn't know how much he stinketh in his proposition!

I would've said the same thing few years back.

What changed?

I'm not seeing it in software and hardware (chip design, etc.).

Sounds like he's a 'me firster'. There's some pet idea he wishes to have happen, and is (quite cavalierly, I might add) willing to denounce IP rights for all to obtain it, or he was burned for stealing IP in the past.