Yet Another Example Of Innovation Without Patent Protection
from the must-be-magic dept
Lately, there's been a growing body of research on industries like fashion and restaurants that thrive without the aid of patent or copyright protections. In these industries, the lack of legal barriers allows innovative ideas to spread rapidly within the industry, while informal social mechanisms like reputation ensure that innovators get proper credit for their creativity. Ed Felten points out a paper by Yale law student Jacob Loshin that explains how the magic industry has thrived without resorting to legal protections for new inventions. Instead, the magic community uses social norms to reward those who discover new magic tricks and punishes those who disclose them to non-magicians. Because magicians rely so much on their professional network of other magicians to learn about new tricks, new equipment, and new performance opportunities, maintaining a good reputation within the magic community is essential to the career of a successful magician. A magician who uses another magician's trick without giving the originator proper credit, or who reveals secrets to non-magicians, is shunned by other magicians. That kind of ostracism can be a much better (not to mention cheaper) way of disciplining wayward members than getting the lawyers involved. While it's absolutely true that the specific circumstances surrounding the magic industry don't necessarily apply to other industries, between this, the fashion industry and the restaurant industry, we're seeing time and time again that innovation can thrive and mechanisms (whether social norms or business models) are quickly presented to reward the innovators -- even if those innovations can (and often are) quickly copied.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: innovation, magic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wanna be a magician
In this shitty business you get neither credit nor money.
Shit
Wrong choice of profession
Too late for me I guess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restaurants? Innovation?
Seriously though, you guys are trying to hard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Guaranteed, if it cost the inventor of the deep fried twinkie a couple hundred million to create the first one, they'd be pretty pissed if they didn't see a return on that investment.
Back to the magic community argument, if a car company shuns another car company...who cares? As a consumer, if I can get car A for $50k or car B for $20k with the only difference being the name and the fact that car B contains technologies they didn't have to develop...I'm going with car B.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's a bogus argument. Copyright applies to anything I write, even this sentence. That didn't cost millions to create, yet we still have copyright, right?
Back to the magic community argument, if a car company shuns another car company...who cares?
You seem to have missed the point by a pretty large margin. The point is that there are *other* mechanisms (in this case social norms, but it need not always be) to explain how the community makes sure people get credit. No one is saying that what works in the magician community works exactly in other industries. In fact, Tim was quite clear to say that wasn't true. For you to pretend that's what Tim was implying doesn't make you look particularly credible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Millions of R&D
There is no legal barrier to creating "smell-alike" perfumes, but consumers continue to buy the original...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since when were patents and copyrights meant to guarantee a return on investment? At most, patents and copyright are meant to provide an opportunity to earn revenue.
As a consumer, if I can get car A for $50k or car B for $20k with the only difference being the name and the fact that car B contains technologies they didn't have to develop...I'm going with car B.
That assumes that it is easy to not only copy, but easy to incorporate those technologies. Sure, I may be able to backward engineer something, but I still have to figure out how to manufacture it cheaper than the original innovator. I also have to figure out how to successfully or better promote it. All these things require financial investments.
People still buy Tylenol or Aspirin despite the wide availability of cheaper generic versions. Brand recognition goes a long way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One could easily draw a comparisson to what you view as obvious next steps to some of the lawsuits we see in the tech world (mobile email anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fashion is not Functional
The patent system is about bringout out new ideas from inventors who would otherwise keep them secret. The fashion and restaurant industries would die if they tried to keep their so-called innovation secret. Using the fashion and restaurant industries as examples of how the world would be better without patents is stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fashion is not Functional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fashion is not Functional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Click on a few of the links (the underlined things in the post) and you'll find out that there is a ton of innovation in the fashion industry. To claim otherwise is playing the fool.
Restaurants? Innovation?
Again, click a link before you starting sounding ignorant.
Anyway, the point still stands. The purpose of intellectual property is to create incentives for innovation... and we're seeing all kinds of innovation in other industries that don't have IP protection... Tim clearly said there are differences in this example, but the point is that from industry to industry, there are always models that seem to present themselves that don't involve IP protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowbrow perhaps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vicious Jugglers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, try this experiment: go watch an old movie or TV show. Not even old, old, just like The French Connection or Miami Vice something. Tell me those clothes don't look dated. Even if you can't quantify why they look different, you have to be aware that they are. Right?
Anyway, back on topic, even if magicians didn't shun the snitches, there's the fact that patent applications are public record, so anyone trying to patent a trick essentially makes it worthless, since everyone knows how it's done now. Sure, no one else can use it without paying you, but you aren't going to draw crowds doing it either, once the secret is out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry about the Taco Bell jab...I do feel bad about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the prestige!?!?
magicians are nasty backstabbing thieves and smashers of birds. who needs patent protection when you can be murdered? after watching that movie i'll never watch david blaine again no matter what he is willing to subject himself to.
seriously tho... patenting a process means making the process of a magic trick public. that pretty much ruins the "magic" of the trick. there is an argument in "the prestige" about that very issue. i hate IP and patents as much as the next guy, but magicians and other circus folk are not exactly good examples to reference in our fight for reform.
also, the "innovation" in fashion has little to do with the clothes themselves and more to do with the seasonal trends. designs are obsoleted every season. the obsolescence is not just planned, it's expected, anticipated even.
no one would bother to patent anything if every year all research and development could be rendered "not hot" by a group of popular engineers.
"please... one click commerce is so 2004! green computing is the new Java!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the prestige!?!?
The only point, as was made clear in the post, wasn't that the way magicians do things is the correct way, but that we're seeing numerous different areas where IP protection isn't necessary, and that other models have a way of forming to allow the creators to profit from their creation.
It seems like it's everyone bashing this post who is trying to stretch its meaning into something that it clearly did not say.
also, the "innovation" in fashion has little to do with the clothes themselves and more to do with the seasonal trends. designs are obsoleted every season. the obsolescence is not just planned, it's expected, anticipated even
Actually, this is wrong. We recently posted a study that showed the entire reason why you have innovation in seasonal trends is because of the lack of IP protection in the industry. If designers could patent or copyright their designs, you wouldn't see such seasonal changes as the trends would last much longer. The reason the trends change so rapidly is that designers are pushed to continually innovate.
no one would bother to patent anything if every year all research and development could be rendered "not hot" by a group of popular engineers.
Yeah, but if engineers had to keep designing new products and features to stay ahead of the competition (or to leapfrog the competition), don't you think we'd be seeing a lot more innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the prestige!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Magicians have not hesitated to patent mechanisms and techniques for truly new illusions, and have not been ostracized for it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield%27s_flying
for one particular example.
Moreover, plenty of folks who have access to these secrets are more than willing to reveal them (remember the Masked Magician specials of a few years ago, or just start searching google or YouTube for "magic secrets"). The thing is, people just don't care that much; they *know* it's a trick, the enjoyment comes in being fooled or presented with a seamless illusion. The point being that the supposed "social norm enforcement" has nothing to do with the ongoing if often-marginalized success of magic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get real
Ah, yet another person who doesn't know anything about the history of patents and makes a bunch of wrong assumptions. Just look at industries in countries that didn't have patent protection. The Netherlands got rid of patent protection and it helped spur innovation and industrialization. The Swiss purposely kept their patent system weak and narrowly defined and it helped spur tremendous innovation and investment in a few key industries.
Yes, it's true that some companies may copy a product, but real innovation isn't about just coming up with a product, but about continually improving on it and better serving your market.
There are better mp3 players out there than the iPod, but Apple has done a bunch of innovative stuff (including bundling things like iTunes and having superior marketing) so that the iPod can still outsell all those companies who copied Apple.
So, stop worrying about people copying ideas, and just focus on serving your customers better and better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The twirl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Examples
Besides, magicians aren't as innovative as you think. They all have the same old tricks. Their art is in tweaking the presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Examples
Invention != Innovation
Anyone can invent anything. There are thousands upon thousands of patents sitting at the USPTO collecting dust. Innovation involves successfully marketing that invention.
It's that tweaking of the presentation that is the innovation. Many magicians do the 'saw the lady in half' trick, and most people know how it works. But some magicians are much better at presenting that trick. Magic is about entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation? Magic?
As someone who's been around the scene for nearly thirty years, I can tell you that, by and large, these is no profession so moribund and totally LACKING in true innovation as magic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perfume industry: another great example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation??
My favorite is one where the critic guy was waxing poetic about how some design house had "reinvented hair". When the models came out, they all had pony tails. I laughed so hard that my wife thought I was going to have an aneurysm.
I certainly believe that there can be innovation without intellectual property, but I don't think the fashion industry is the best example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a magician..
However, if you were to talk to a magician, they'd likely tell you that if the patent system were able to keep methods secret(say with an NDA) then we'd be all about using them because while there are innovators, there are also TONS of thieves. A close friend produces some of the best hand made magic available on the planet and some idiot has stolen his design and is producing the effects he has created without the least bit of innovation on their part.
The thing is, MOST of magic cannot be patented since it is simply a rehash of prior methods...and we distinguish between props, gimmicks and methods much more than the average person because a magic trick can be entirely composed of a gimmick, or it may only play a small part, or one of a million other possibilities. As magicians we tend to have more than one method to get the same effect, so if I make a card reappear at the top of the deck after you've seen it placed in the middle of the deck, the next time I do it may be via a completely different method and you'll be none the wiser.
What's the point? If the patent system were a little more intuitive and secretive, we'd be using it to no end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I walk by Bryant Park every day during the week, I do have to laugh about the comment on Fashion Week here. Last night as I left work, I was two blocks down from Bryant Park when up the avenue came running a flock of models who were obviously late for their runway walk (session, whatever). As for their value? Well, I never bothered to look at their shoes or their clothes, but I guess that type of model marketing doesn't work for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, more likely, new models would be found by innovators to get the ROI that was necessary in providing products demanded in the market, and the ongoing competition to out-innovate each other would increase, rather than stifle, the pace of innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Norms
What if we mutually established a value within our society that innovation is important and stealing is wrong. While the concept is simple, it is not easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
Regardless, I strongly agree that the other three industries prove that there are far superior methods to promoting innovation than through patents and litigation. My question is this: if the patent system were entirely removed, how would society adapt? Would everyone invent or innovate? Would everyone be scared? Or would the continually innovating companies stay on top? Hmmm... ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
Luckily, we have some examples -- such as when the Netherlands completely ditched their patent system for a period of a few decades. Contrary to the widespread myth that patents are necessary, during that period of time the Netherlands industrialized, built up some key industries that were both innovative and competitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm
I have another example for you - China
They didn't have any IP protection at all and they managed to build a huge industrial nation in just a short period of time.
Only they didn't invent anything - just manufactured things already invented in the West
Only now they are trying to implement some form of working IP protection system to develop more competitive R&D
No IP protection = no R&D
Like I said, get a real job, dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
Ah, right. Academic research that was published and peer reviewed and plenty of supporting historical evidence. That's bogus? Uh huh...
They didn't have any IP protection at all and they managed to build a huge industrial nation in just a short period of time.
Only they didn't invent anything - just manufactured things already invented in the West
Actually, there's been a fair amount of innovation coming out of China... and some of it has been on the business model side. Certainly there is plenty of copying going on, but much of that has actually hurt Chinese company's and their reputation. But to say there's no innovation coming out of China is wrong.
Only now they are trying to implement some form of working IP protection system to develop more competitive R&D
Ah, no, you seem to have gotten that wrong. They're working on adding IP for two reasons: pressure from foreign firms who don't want to innovate and compete *and* pressure from Chinese firms who don't want to keep up the pace of innovation and want to lock in their position, rather than continue to compete against smaller firms.
No IP protection = no R&D
Provably false, but if you keep saying it maybe someone will believe you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]