Innovation Is A Process, Not A Burst Of Inspiration
from the the-long-nose dept
For years, we've been pointing out that innovation is an ongoing process rather than a distinct event. While this may sound somewhat obvious, when you combine this with the difference between invention and innovation and the fact that innovation is often the more important piece for overall progress, it's curious that our patent system is designed to protect that initial spark of invention -- at the cost of hurting that ongoing process of innovation by making it more difficult and expensive. Business Week is now running an article that seems to recognize this, as it highlights the importance of the ongoing process of innovation (though, it doesn't get into the question of patents and how they play into things). It does note that too many people are only focused on that burst of invention, rather than the process of innovation -- which is understandable, but problematic if we really want to encourage innovation. It's good to see a publication like Business Week highlight this important point, because as more people start to understand this, it's more likely that they'll understand the dangers of our current patent policy.
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, patents, process
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
bunch of hoooees
Mike Masnick sure knows better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bunch of hoooees
Actually, if you look at what the Founding Fathers both said and did, it would appear they agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Granted I'm no expert and my history could be a bit off, but I remember something along those lines and that would tend to illustrate the lengthy process of invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's more expensive -- innovation or invention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's more expensive -- innovation or inventi
Look at the software industry for example. How much linux cost linux distributors and the tech industry? Probably a lot of money.
By your logics, the software industry should have software patents too!
Let not forget the facts that the agriculture industry actually thrive without patents before these patents play a role. I am pretty sure that breeding is an expensive process of experimentation and experimentation.
Pharmaceutical industry in Italy actually thrive without patents before they were introduced by the judical process pressed by foreign corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's more expensive -- innovation or inv
Look at the software industry for example.
Invention in the software industry is cheap cheap cheap. It is development / implementation that is expensive. That is why so many of us are opposed to most software patents - the person who was first to patent a mere idea (one which would have been inevitably discovered by others in short order) squeezes money from those who spent the resources to create a viable product.
Let not forget the facts that the agriculture industry actually thrive without patents
Development in the agricultural industry can be expensive and risky and historically patents were difficult to enforce. The result is a long history of publicly funded agricultural research and education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well this concept would only work in a society where everyone is committed to improving society and not their own bankroll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's say that someone creates the original concept of a light bulb, an electrical current run threw a wire to produce light. That guy goes out and patents it and leaves it at that. The light bulb dies there because a wire with that much current threw it burns out almost instantly. Without someone improving on the idea and adding a non-oxygen atmosphere to the lit wire, the concept goes nowhere.
The concept of the patent only works in an environment that you describe where everyone is committed to improving society. The second someone gets greedy it turns into what we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People aren't suggesting that the patent system be torn down and everything essentially go to 'Open Source' (well, MOST people aren't).
People are saying go back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. LIMIT the time you can hold a patent on the idea.
By the way things used to work, a lot of technology and art (think Disney's version of Cinderella) would have been exclusively the patent holders, until they died or I believe it was somewhere in 50-70 years. That way the 'inventor' could reap the rewards of his discovery, but then after he's been given his due people can come along and make it better or use it in new ways.
Imagine if lightbulb makers had to pay the descendants of Thomas Edison (the ones that held the patent via renewal) now. How much would they have to pay? How much could they get sued for if they didn't?
Then look at real problems. How can Disney sue people over Disney's Cinderella, when that is an adaptation of works already in public domain, now that the patent holder is long since legally dead? The Disney corporation keeps renewing copyrights on products that SHOULD be in public domain by now.
How does that "foster innovation" in any way? Sounds more like, think of an idea (preferably one that others would think of, I believe the word is 'obvious'), patent/copyright it, and milk it for eternity.
That is exactly what the Founding Fathers DIDN'T want. But it is what is happening, and no one is doing dick about it.
PS: lawl at AngryDude's continual failure to troll. If he isn't trying (and failing) at it then he is REALLY ignorant of any facts and is even more laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
patents last for 20 years
hardly an eternity
Now GFY and I'm gonna call it a day and have some beer
See ya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And by they way, I agree with you on your first post. The founding fathers are spinning in their grave, and Mike douse know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People are saying go back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. LIMIT the time you can hold a patent on the idea.
Er, patents are quite limited. I think you're confusing patents and copyright here.
However, what the founding fathers DID want was for the patent system to be used only in the rarest of cases, where there was market failure and a clear benefit to offering a patent to push for "the progress of science and the useful arts." It was never intended to be used for every possible idea. It was only for special cases, and they were quite worried about how it might be abused.
If they were rolling in the ground at all these days, it would be over how the patent system is used and how folks like angry dude think it should be used. It clearly goes against everything they said and highlights all of their fears about the system.
James Madison: "But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mikey,
I have only one(!) patent and it will stand any PTO or court scrutiny, even after KSR decision (unlike thousands of other patents owned by the likes of MShit and IBM)
Heck, I personally have no problem at all with KSR decision...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? I disagree. The two things are not, at all, mutually exclusive. If the focus is on improving your bankroll, you can do that by improving on the products so that you differentiate and more people want to buy your product than the other person's. That's competition and it helps both improve society and the successful creator's bankroll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my experience ...
Still, by effectively blocking other people from having usuable epiphanies with patents, you are harming progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, a society with no lightbulbs? No wonder its so dark here. Oh, and Jack Ward Bolton, your website sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't throw bricks, you are mixing up copyright protection with patent protection. They are not the same thing.
"By the way things used to work, a lot of technology and art (think Disney's version of Cinderella) would have been exclusively the patent holders, until they died or I believe it was somewhere in 50-70 years. That way the 'inventor' could reap the rewards of his discovery, but then after he's been given his due people can come along and make it better or use it in new ways." Same goes for the lightbulb post, no, patents run out after 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at the Vonage and Verizon patent dispute. Verizon didn't even hint at a VoIP service until they started the lawsuit. Then they started forcing it on the FiOS users. Having a patent portfolio that will never be used outside of court, even for 20 years, will just slow us down in 20 year increments.
I still like the idea that was put up earlier. Have a proof of concept to patent and then bring the product to market within a certain amount of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is everyone wants to get paid for their contributions to the world. Until that type of thinking is gone, innovation will be stifled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without patents and copyright, we would have true property.
Everyone wants to get paid for their contributions to the world is more like they feel entitled to revenue sources based on their ideas even if they play NO ROLE in creating them.
I make money and also did without the benefit of copyright crutch.
I also feel that I want to be paid for my contribution but am I harming people through that kind of thinking? No, because I don't use copyright as a mean to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Um no.
No question the patent system is screwed up, but patents and copyrights are not even close to the same concept. Copyright is about a specific piece of work product.
The level of ignorance on IP issues around here is HUGE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cisco did the same thing. Never heard of the iPhone until the suit with apple.
I believe all my information is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are many other examples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell that to Poincare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]