Is devaluing the concept of "ideas" in favor of actually executing them such a bad thing? I understand the need for patents/copyright/trademarks on an intellectual level, especially since we don't...
Is devaluing the concept of "ideas" in favor of actually executing them such a bad thing?
I understand the need for patents/copyright/trademarks on an intellectual level, especially since we don't yet live in a post-scarcity society. However I can't help but feel those concepts have been corrupted by the ultra-wealthy/corporations and are now a major hindrance to societal progress rather than encouraging innovation, which was their original intent. Something about totally unfettered, free exchange of information is also incredibly appealing to me on a visceral level too, which is why I try my best to support open-source projects.
I definitely agree that patents (especially for high R&D cost products) and brands have their value, which makes them worth protecting with laws and which renders them unethical to usurp. But as...
I definitely agree that patents (especially for high R&D cost products) and brands have their value, which makes them worth protecting with laws and which renders them unethical to usurp. But as you said, if your idea is so rudimentary/simple that it only requires basic manufacturing (or programming) techniques to realise (which that "selfie phone case" and most other kickstarter projects generally are), then it's a bit more of an ethical grey area to "steal" that idea, even with a patent on it IMO.
I'm also of this mindset. At least the idea is out there in the wild somewhere being used. I care more about the idea than who gets to use it to print money.
I'm also of this mindset. At least the idea is out there in the wild somewhere being used. I care more about the idea than who gets to use it to print money.
I think the only problem I have here is that someone else is profiting off this guys hard work to take the concept of a selfie stick case and turn it into a prototype/reality. I see no issue with...
Is devaluing the concept of "ideas" in favor of actually executing them such a bad thing?
I think the only problem I have here is that someone else is profiting off this guys hard work to take the concept of a selfie stick case and turn it into a prototype/reality.
I see no issue with another company "stealing" this idea and producing it for cheaper, but this guy got cut out before he could make any money off it.
If this becomes the norm, people are disincentivized from coming up with ideas, and it stifles innovation. We need to be sure that inventors are properly rewarded for their time.
Although I have seen this happening with things like the fidget cube or any easy to manufacture product, I've seen a lot more of the opposite: people finding things on aliexpress and then...
Although I have seen this happening with things like the fidget cube or any easy to manufacture product, I've seen a lot more of the opposite: people finding things on aliexpress and then marketing them as a new gadget on Kickstarter making it into essentially a dropship scheme.
Drop shipping is a supply chain management method in which the retailer does not keep goods in stock but instead transfers the customer orders and shipment details to either the manufacturer, another retailer, or a wholesaler, who then ships the goods directly to the customer.
This is an issue that can be over come by working w/ the know entities and doing the ground work. Also note this Article is from October 17, 2016, so something that people having been dealing with...
This is an issue that can be over come by working w/ the know entities and doing the ground work.
Also note this Article is from October 17, 2016, so something that people having been dealing with for awhile.
NNN agreements are becoming standard and enforceable, especially in HK.
Basically those who want to get into the entrepreneur game don't throw ur hands up in defeat before you give it a shot, just be aware of the landscape you are walking into and be prepared to play the game.
My other takeaways:
Interesting isn't this what the IP system was designed to help prevent?
Success in business comes down to speed and execution, not necessarily originality.
This is an important question to ask about any idea that you come up with.
“The question is more, what do you actually have that’s defensible?”
This is also important, because it gets making ur product defensible. It also gets at how innovative is your product
product that requires sophisticated manufacturing know-how, so that the average factory wouldn’t bother trying to copy it.
Software makes your Moat bigger
Companies can defend themselves from copying by investing in software that complements physical hardware
I watched a documentary on how IP law in the tech industry and a few other factors created the perfect storm for this kind of thing. The gist of it was that ideas could be rapidly iterated on...
I watched a documentary on how IP law in the tech industry and a few other factors created the perfect storm for this kind of thing. The gist of it was that ideas could be rapidly iterated on because the idea to execution pipeline is so short there like the article says. Also the culture is different so "taking" someone else's idea and reworking it isn't seen in the same negative "you stole my idea!" light as in the west. One of the guys being interviewed even said that the culture of claiming ideas was stifling things in the west. It happens often and its a feature of the tech community there, not a bug.
So, from that perspective I'm not as sure as I once was in thinking this is an issue. Is this really bad? Maybe for the individual that had their idea copied, but if they copy is cheaper or better in any way doesn't the consumer benefit? I think so.
I wish I could find the documentary again but I was just surfing when I found it. Most of the interviewees were Chinese, a few were from other countries in the region. The doc touched on how the...
I wish I could find the documentary again but I was just surfing when I found it. Most of the interviewees were Chinese, a few were from other countries in the region. The doc touched on how the standard of living was rising due to the manufacturing there with cities in the East becoming metropolises overnight. China still has heaps of labor potential with the west of the country being less industrialized compared to the east. I'll take a look at that PDF btw.
It seemed like a fundamental difference in culture and the way they thought about intellectual property. So when it came down to it, we (or anyone else for that matter) couldn't really do the same thing they did to us because they simply don't see it the way we do in the west. From the perspective of an outsider looking in that culture of sharing seemed ideal or even conducive for a booming tech economy where everyone is improving upon the ideas of others. And that's not without its problems, as you've pointed out. The economics of it all may be opposed to the culture of sharing.
I'm not too familiar with India and how the pharma industry developed but I have a broad understanding of their role when it comes to generics, so that does make sense.
I'm neither a fan of copying nor a fan of restrictive rights, but that doesn't matter. What is happening is the world is speeding up, accelerating its pace. For a great read on this, download...
I'm neither a fan of copying nor a fan of restrictive rights, but that doesn't matter. What is happening is the world is speeding up, accelerating its pace. For a great read on this, download Accelerando by Charles Stross. It's a somewhat dated but wickedly funny and in this case relevant story about the singularity.
All of the disruptors will soon themselves be disrupted. Faster, smarter, better. That was a slogan years ago. It's actually a great argument for the commons, sharing, and a future where everything is a commodity. As well as the absence of artificial scarcity. Or do you really think those new Iphones are scarce because Apple can't make them fast enough?
Is devaluing the concept of "ideas" in favor of actually executing them such a bad thing?
I understand the need for patents/copyright/trademarks on an intellectual level, especially since we don't yet live in a post-scarcity society. However I can't help but feel those concepts have been corrupted by the ultra-wealthy/corporations and are now a major hindrance to societal progress rather than encouraging innovation, which was their original intent. Something about totally unfettered, free exchange of information is also incredibly appealing to me on a visceral level too, which is why I try my best to support open-source projects.
I definitely agree that patents (especially for high R&D cost products) and brands have their value, which makes them worth protecting with laws and which renders them unethical to usurp. But as you said, if your idea is so rudimentary/simple that it only requires basic manufacturing (or programming) techniques to realise (which that "selfie phone case" and most other kickstarter projects generally are), then it's a bit more of an ethical grey area to "steal" that idea, even with a patent on it IMO.
I'm also of this mindset. At least the idea is out there in the wild somewhere being used. I care more about the idea than who gets to use it to print money.
I think the only problem I have here is that someone else is profiting off this guys hard work to take the concept of a selfie stick case and turn it into a prototype/reality.
I see no issue with another company "stealing" this idea and producing it for cheaper, but this guy got cut out before he could make any money off it.
If this becomes the norm, people are disincentivized from coming up with ideas, and it stifles innovation. We need to be sure that inventors are properly rewarded for their time.
Although I have seen this happening with things like the fidget cube or any easy to manufacture product, I've seen a lot more of the opposite: people finding things on aliexpress and then marketing them as a new gadget on Kickstarter making it into essentially a dropship scheme.
All you are describing is a scam, and while Kickstarter has its fair share of them does not mean that is what kickstarter is supposed to be about.
I had never heard that term before so had to look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_shipping
This is an issue that can be over come by working w/ the know entities and doing the ground work.
Also note this Article is from October 17, 2016, so something that people having been dealing with for awhile.
NNN agreements are becoming standard and enforceable, especially in HK.
Basically those who want to get into the entrepreneur game don't throw ur hands up in defeat before you give it a shot, just be aware of the landscape you are walking into and be prepared to play the game.
My other takeaways:
Interesting isn't this what the IP system was designed to help prevent?
This is an important question to ask about any idea that you come up with.
This is also important, because it gets making ur product defensible. It also gets at how innovative is your product
Software makes your Moat bigger
I watched a documentary on how IP law in the tech industry and a few other factors created the perfect storm for this kind of thing. The gist of it was that ideas could be rapidly iterated on because the idea to execution pipeline is so short there like the article says. Also the culture is different so "taking" someone else's idea and reworking it isn't seen in the same negative "you stole my idea!" light as in the west. One of the guys being interviewed even said that the culture of claiming ideas was stifling things in the west. It happens often and its a feature of the tech community there, not a bug.
So, from that perspective I'm not as sure as I once was in thinking this is an issue. Is this really bad? Maybe for the individual that had their idea copied, but if they copy is cheaper or better in any way doesn't the consumer benefit? I think so.
I wish I could find the documentary again but I was just surfing when I found it. Most of the interviewees were Chinese, a few were from other countries in the region. The doc touched on how the standard of living was rising due to the manufacturing there with cities in the East becoming metropolises overnight. China still has heaps of labor potential with the west of the country being less industrialized compared to the east. I'll take a look at that PDF btw.
It seemed like a fundamental difference in culture and the way they thought about intellectual property. So when it came down to it, we (or anyone else for that matter) couldn't really do the same thing they did to us because they simply don't see it the way we do in the west. From the perspective of an outsider looking in that culture of sharing seemed ideal or even conducive for a booming tech economy where everyone is improving upon the ideas of others. And that's not without its problems, as you've pointed out. The economics of it all may be opposed to the culture of sharing.
I'm not too familiar with India and how the pharma industry developed but I have a broad understanding of their role when it comes to generics, so that does make sense.
I'm neither a fan of copying nor a fan of restrictive rights, but that doesn't matter. What is happening is the world is speeding up, accelerating its pace. For a great read on this, download Accelerando by Charles Stross. It's a somewhat dated but wickedly funny and in this case relevant story about the singularity.
All of the disruptors will soon themselves be disrupted. Faster, smarter, better. That was a slogan years ago. It's actually a great argument for the commons, sharing, and a future where everything is a commodity. As well as the absence of artificial scarcity. Or do you really think those new Iphones are scarce because Apple can't make them fast enough?
LPT: don't put hardware on crowdfunding websites