Dilbert Explains Why Just Copying Others Is A Dumb Business Model
from the the-wisdom-of-dilbert dept
One of the common claims that is brought up by patent system defenders when we discuss the idea of a greatly limited or eliminated patent system is that it doesn't make sense for anyone to innovate, because others will just copy them. Of course, historically we have plenty of evidence that this isn't true -- and it makes sense if you think about it logically. Just copying something doesn't give anyone a reason to buy from you -- and depending on the product, copying them will take time, combined with the additional time to even let people know you've got a product in the market. By that time, the real innovator may be much further ahead. Steven points out that a recent Dilbert cartoon makes this point perfectly: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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Internet Explorer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree
I see the absolute opposite regarding pizza joints on a year by year basis.
On the other hand, I live in Chicago, where we do pizza right and eat it all the time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree
No, five years later you have a Pizza District.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: strawman
precisely! explains why craftsman doesn't make hammers. due the the high availability of cheap knockoffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: strawman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: strawman
Wait, capitalism? What's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GET OUT!1! lol
I read Dilbert, XKCD (Randall's spies work next door to Scott's), The Zombie Hunters, and a couple World of Warcraft-related strips. I get all my news from Techdirt, Fark, and WoWInsider. This is why print media is doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GET OUT!1! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GET OUT!1! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dilbert.com/2009-11-17/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rudyard Kipling said it in 1896
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed to market is only 1 consideration
Speed-to-market doesn't resolve all of the issues of the little guy. For example, if I come up with a really clever twist on search, I still have to develop it, build a brand, attract users, etc. Once Google sees what I'm up to, nothing would stop them from reverse engineering my development and adding it to their already well-developed ecosystem and destroying my market opportunity.
I'm not saying that the existing patent system is the answer, because I don't think it is, but something is needed IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speed to market is only 1 consideration
If you don't think you can make money by selling it to Google, then you will have to find another way to make money. You are absolutely right that Google's hardfought market position will not be yours overnight, just because you came up with a new search model. (Should it?!) So you will have to find a way to make your money on your search in a way that does not depend on Google-supremacy. Instead of selling eyes and search result placement, maybe your new twist will allow you to sell something else. In other words, what is needed isn't a government mandate or a socially-enforced monopoly. It is innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speed to market is only 1 consideration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another lovely from Mike
Now, if I come along and COPY the end result, one would believe I could sell this cheaper....hence someone wanting to buy/purchase/lease this from me since I did not invest the original time/money.
Think of generic drugs. Why are they "cheaper"? Why do people flock to a generic drug when it comes out? Because it's less expensive and offered as such since the original design/development didn't cost them the time/money thereby allowing them to offer it to the public at a far reduced rate.
Same as some Asshole selling copies of copyrighted movies/CD's at Times Square in NYC. No investment, just burn and turn.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another lovely from Mike
They do have to invest money, or do you think those little plastic discs are produced by magic?(Not defending the practice mind you)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another lovely from Mike
Indeed. And yet, the originals -- despite being nearly identical, still sell (and sell well) at much higher prices. If it were a problem, they wouldn't still be able to sell at higher prices. What this shows is that brand recognition and being first to market matters, and you get a premium for it. Why do you need additional protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
What did you think [Citation Needed] meant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
From http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm
In 1899, a German chemist named Felix Hoffmann, who worked for a German company called Bayer, rediscovered Gerhardt's formula. Felix Hoffmann made some of the formula and gave it to his father who was suffering from the pain of arthritis. With good results, Felix Hoffmann then convinced Bayer to market the new wonder drug. Aspirin was patented on February 27, 1900.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
Do you think a company would go to that extent to put an ad out if they weren't losing market share? I don't.... Note this article from the NY Times about losing market share to generics. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/business/03generic.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
Wait, are you honestly suggesting that companies that don't have generic competition don't do advertising? I think you'd find that you're sadly mistaken.
And of course they're losing market share. They started with 100%. There's only one way to go.
But that does nothing to support the argument for the need of a patent. Why should they get a monopoly. The fact that they need to advertise and convince people why their product is better is part of basic business. I'm not clear what you have against that?
I could open up a pizza shop, and then so does a guy down the street. So, sure, I'll advertise to try to get more people to come to my shop. That's called competition and I thought it was a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
Opening up a pizza shop and introducing a new, innovative drug are on astronomically different scales as far as difficulty and expense are concerned. Comparing the two is grossly irresponsible.
Yes, competition is healthy, but you should also realize that competition or the threat of competition also keeps others from entering the market or taking the time to invent new and useful things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another lovely from Mike
NOT the same. To produce a generic drug, as you accurately pointed, there are no R&D costs, so your overhead is much cheaper, etc. However, there must still be some differences, however slight. Thus, that product is now YOURS. An exact duplicate is not yours. Which is what I believe was the ORIGINAL INTENT of copyright/patent laws.
Also, as the cartoon points out, if you try to copy someone who is already up on the game, you can only copy what they've already done. You cannot copy what they're GOING to do, "which is unknowable". Thus, you must have a RTB your product; usually that means making your product somehow BETTER and not just a copy, "which is stupid".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike
I learned this when the govt. banned the particular type of propellent in the generic albuterol inhaler, I got stuck having to buy a name brand, knowing that i would not get a cheaper one for 7 years, still haven't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another lovely from Mike
But you should admit that that is not the whole reason the generic drug is cheaper. The main reason, in fact, is that the brand drug was sold under a monopoly for the duration of the patent. And the economic certainty about monopoly is that it drives higher prices and lower volumes.
In fact, the main reason the generics are cheaper is because there are many sources of generics, and competitive markets have lower price and higher supply versus monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Queen Race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_race
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition is good, but the patent system was set up to promote innovation by allowing inventors the protections of a temporary monopoly to recoup such costs. The patent system certainly needs protection from trolls and whatnot, but it shouldn't be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are only TWO certainties that never (significantly) change no matter what happens, or where people are living:
1) People need water
2) People die
Why did I not include food or birth? Because those needs significantly change from place to place, and VERY rapidly.
So unless you sell water or death-related services, you MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST constantly strive to improve your product.
P.S. even water has become a booming business lately, so that is beginning to go the way of food-related needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another lovely from Mike
AND....check this out...Pfizer is now getting into the Generic Drug Manufacturing business. Why? Because it's easier to copy someone else and make a buck rather than put your own R&D into it. If Pfizer can make a generic Aspirin and sell under the PFizer name, which has "Brand Recognition", then they're profit margin is that much greater for that product...no R&D.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=ayjc2PlZcHnE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another lovely from Mike
Because they realized it's a market they can compete in. Does this surprise you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually that's not true, and if you hammered nails for a living you'd know that. Some hammers are superior in material/design to the point that a novice can hammer a straight nail just about every time. Hand him the shit y hammer and the same will not apply. I'm speaking from experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off, If you are in the same business and a year behind, it is unlikely you are copying someone else, but rather trying to get past them. Mere duplication in most cases is very easy.
Second, if it takes a year to only duplicate it, it probably took many more years to develop - so when you do get there, you will have a "cost of many years" advantage over the incumbent, which will allow you to gain market share rapidly (concept supported by the idea that generic drugs often take large chunks of the market away from expired patent holders)
Third, once you have spent a year to catch up to where the other guy was, and they have then spent the year moving ahead, the time to catch up to them next time should be shorter, as you are already most of the way there. If their 5 year development is your 1 year duplication, then their 1 year development is probably a 2 or 3 month duplication. The longer the game goes on, the closer you are all the time.
So sorry Mike, I guess they didn't teach you this stuff in econ 101, most of us learn about it in RealLife101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Zeno's paradox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By this reasoning, nobody ever does anything new without a patent. Car companies for example don't bother coming out with new models, because somebody else would just copy them. Toy companies don't make new toys, they just keep producing what's been done before. What's the point when somebody else would just copy it?
So sorry Mike, I guess they didn't teach you this stuff in econ 101, most of us learn about it in RealLife101
If you pay attention in RealLife 101, you'll see that companies that don't do new stuff generally get left behind, regardless of whether they have patents or trademarks stifling competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just so you know, toy companies and car companies utilize the patent system regularly. And yes, if such companies don't think the expense of R&D to develop these new car models or new toys will be recouped and then some by selling the product when it can be easily copied, then yes, they probably will not develop said products.
Apparently you don't think it costs much money to employ automobile design engineers or toy designers. I take it you've never been a part of such industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course they do. But they cannot patent everything they do. Some updates/new products are not patentable, yet they come to market anyway.
And yes, if such companies don't think the expense of R&D to develop these new car models or new toys will be recouped and then some by selling the product when it can be easily copied, then yes, they probably will not develop said products.
"Easily copied" is for the most part a myth. You really think a new car model would be "easily copied"? Toys are simpler, but look at Lego compared to the ripoffs. Lego is more expensive and higher quality, and despite other companies copying their product (to the point where you can snap the different brands of bricks together), they still sell in huge numbers. Far, far more than any copycat.
Apparently you don't think it costs much money to employ automobile design engineers or toy designers. I take it you've never been a part of such industries.
Apparently you like making stuff up about what I wrote. And also making completely irrelevant assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilbert cartoon
1. This cartoon has nothing to do with whether or not we should have a patent system, and
2. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". There are multiple cases of someone having an invention stolen, or refusing to reveal an innovation, etc., to the public because they could not protect it from theft. In fact, the latter is the real reason the founding fathers mandated such as system.
Even so, I do favor changing the CURRENT system, it is awful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]