The Difference Between Innovation And Invention... In Two Minutes With A Whiteboard
from the see-if-you-can-figure-out-what-the-product-is dept
It's time for our third UPS-sponsored whiteboard video, explaining some of the topics we discuss around here in two minutes or less. As you might remember, the first explained the economics of abundance and the second discussed the innovator's dilemma. This third one is about the difference between invention and innovation, and the process of getting from the first to the second, using one particular product as an example:![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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, invention
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, actually, there's much more to this story, which is that the main company behind the zipper did patent it, and did aggressively enforce the patents -- which is part of the reason that innovation in the space was so slow. There were some more innovative and useful solutions that were made by others, but they got shot down by the original patent holder.
But that was a separate issue from what was discussed in the video.
In the absence of patents, the "zipper" likely would have come about much sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See? It all depends on how you look at things. Re-writing history in your mental image is easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Effectively, Mike wants the best of both world, but the path described typically is the worst of both instead. Take away the incentive to invest, and encourage nothing but cheap replication (with a new paint color)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, no, the c-curity wasn't the "best product at the time," since it didn't actually fulfill any niche or...work correctly, and therefore failed in the market. Keep on trying to explain why anyone would want to copy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speculation: anything else.
Your idea seems to be that it would have been no worse without patents, but you don't seem to have any scenario in which the market in substantially improved by patents. On the other hand, the possibility exists that the market could have been much better without patents.
I can't see any reason to think both activities would not take place in the absence of patents: copycats doing the exact same product (but probably not as well, because that's generally the way of copycats), and innovators improving on it. But feel free to try to convince us that innovation will only occur with patent protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
of course, that's why you only invest the absolute minimum and go to market as early as possible. if you release your product designs under an open license that requires replicas to carry attributions to you and your company, and for all improvements to the design to be released under a similar license. any research that went into the product then serves as prior art to prevent someone from using IP laws to hijack your invention.
you can enjoy good margins while the product is unique and when the cheap replicas arrive you can adjust your pricing and use your status as the original innovator as to keep your product unique.
you can then listen to the market for feedback and watch what your imitators are doing to differentiate themselves. if they make a marginal improvement on your original design, you can copy it as well, thanks to the open license.
even if your competitors don't improve your design, you can leverage your brand, your reputation, your customer service, and other differentiators to maintain an advantage while you work on your next iteration. you can also learn from your competitors successes and mistakes and learn which vendors, suppliers and partners can make a difference for you.
the arduino and the many replicas and specialized iterations of it are a good example of this process. the designs are open and free and anyone can take them to china and have them made. in the wake of the original arduino, tons of direct competitors, after market accessories, niche/specialty applications have sprouted up, creating a vibrant marketplace for small scale micro-controllers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, yeah. They had the patent. Good luck trying to swim up that stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Developing gives you the entirety of a brand new market.
And most importantly, the first company to invent a market (and not give people a reason to run to the competitors) is the one that usually keeps the stranglehold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please example the market share for generic drugs when they come on the market. It's pretty clear what happens when a product with no development costs goes up against a product pricved to recoup development costs and to pay for future developments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey needs diet and exercise
You are starting to look like a typical CEO pig
And you are only what, 30 something ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
Okay, the obvious question regarding your interest in his looks aside, is that comment REALLY the best you have to offer to this discussion? Personal insults are the way to go, huh? This comment, more than any of the other idiotic bullshit you have spewed in the past, proves to me that you have no interest in altering minds or convincing intellectual people of your way of thinking, but that you'd rather play the brat.
"You are starting to look like a typical CEO pig"
And you've quickly gone from being entertainingly infuriating to completely irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
Nothing got in the way of "innovation". It's amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
Which makes sense, who else would use "angry dude" as a nickname. He probably has some sort of blog where he yells at other random blogs and then tells his followers how cool he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mikey needs diet and exercise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left handed freak!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to send you a big plastic deer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really just need to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. Since the point was to show the difference between innovation and invention over a lifecycle, the whole point was to use a technology that had gone through the lifecycle.
Using a "cutting edge" example doesn't make any sense because it's not clear where the market is going for that.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks!
These videos have been really enjoyable and thought-inducing!
You've done a good job of simplifying these various concepts by putting them in this whiteboard-video format. Love it!
What was it about the BF Goodrich deal / product modification that made the zipper 'acceptable' when it previously hadn't been? I'm making an assumption that the modification wasn't a huge variation on the original concept... Maybe the market's general attitude had something to do with acceptance at the time also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bootstrapping
If the modern zipper in all its refinement were introduced today to a world that had never seen it, it would be a tough sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bootstrapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bootstrapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bootstrapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talon Zippers
I spent the first 10 years of my career with Talon. It was an incredible learning experience on many different levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the kind of stuff Monster Cables and Apple dream about in their nightmares!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innovating MM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: innovating MM
Be careful about the assumptions you make.
Of course you and they have done little or no inventing, innovating or creation of a company based on a new technology.
I've actually done all three. Why do you assume otherwise?
Just to be clear the zipper was not innovated, it was just a solution chasing problems - very different.
Actually, there was a lot of innovation that went into making the zipper a success. Books have been written about it. Obviously, in a two minute video it was tough to go into the details.
The key to good innovation is a great deal of attention to the real needs of the market. It should be understood that great innovations do not require any invention at all. A case in point the ipod.
Indeed. We absolutely agree on that, and I've discussed that in the past. I'm not sure why you think we disagree.
Could you explain further? Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Culmination...
Couple of interesting points:
There was only one significant invention related to the zipper after the 1917 patent.
The zipper was a solution looking for a problem. It took decades to gain acceptance for the zipper. While the ability to get a patent certainly provided enough value to help spur the invention, customers did not exist.
Question: Why invent (or even innovate) a device for whom there are no customers?
Answer: Because the inventor's company, or some intelligent person partnered with the inventor, helps create a market for the invention. It can take years or decades to gain market acceptance, but the driver to develop the market is because it increases the value of the good covered by the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new product
http://www.fairsharechorecards.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]