Crazy Coincidence, Plagiarism, Or An Obvious Idea For An Electric Car Ad?

from the seems-possible dept

David points us to this fantastic post by Ken Segall, entitled Creativity has many fathers, and analyzing the story of two car commercials that seem quite similar. The first, for the Nissan LEAF, is below: The second is from Renault, for the Z.E.: The two ads debuted within days of each other. You might note some similarities. Or, actually, a ton of similarities. My first response was to remember that Nissan and Renault are connected at the hip in a slightly odd non-merger alliance where each company owns a substantial stake in the other. However, the two companies are still mostly separate, and their marketing is apparently entirely separate. More specifically, the two ads were developed by two different ad agencies -- and apparently neither is particularly happy about this, with each suggesting the other "plagiarized" the ad. However, neither has been too vocal about this publicly, and no legal action has been threatened.

Segall digs up the possible reason why, in the form of one more ad... for the Mitsubishi i-Miev. This commercial came out way before the other two: Yeah, it's kind of tough to claim someone else plagiarized you, when your ad looks like a blatant copy of yet someone else's...

Perhaps the reality is that this idea was just so obvious that three different ad agencies came up with it. It's not hard to see how a brainstorming session might come up with exactly this concept pretty easily. Or perhaps there really was some copying. But, in the end, does it really matter? As Segall notes about all three ads, "Wow, what a fantastic concept."

Filed Under: cars, commercials, electric vehicles, ideas
Companies: mitsubishi, nissan, renault

Some Old Guy Can't Come Up With Any New Ideas; So He Says There Are No New Ideas & It's Twitter's Fault

from the is-this-crap-worth-publishing? dept

Quite a week for the luddites out there. First we get Rob Levine's silly screed about the internet killing off a bunch of industries that are actually thriving. And now we have the NY Times publishing absolute tripe from Neal Gabler, bizarrely and ridiculously claiming that the age of "big ideas" is over, and it's all the fault of Twitter and Facebook. It's incredible that the NY Times would publish such absolute garbage. Nowhere does Gabler actually support his thesis.

It's yet another example of "back in the old days" mythological thinking, where someone, who only remembers the "highlights" of a bygone era, is upset that there's a lot of other stuff going on in the modern era as well. Gabler points to a bunch of "big thinkers" from the past -- Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Betty Friedan and others. And then insists that no one like that is showing up today -- or if they are, they're being ignored. This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. He points to Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt as "big thinkers" of today who are mostly ignored. Really?!? All three are pretty widely known, and I'd bet are pretty much equally known in the world as his initial list at similar points in their life and career. Gabler just seems to have an arbitrary standard of how well known certain "big thinkers" are.

The real crux of Gabler's argument appears to be that we're all doing too much of that tweeting and stuff, such that we no longer have time to think. And his scientific evidence to back this up is... oh look, absolutely nothing.

It is certainly no accident that the post-idea world has sprung up alongside the social networking world. Even though there are sites and blogs dedicated to ideas, Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, etc., the most popular sites on the Web, are basically information exchanges, designed to feed the insatiable information hunger, though this is hardly the kind of information that generates ideas. It is largely useless except insofar as it makes the possessor of the information feel, well, informed. Of course, one could argue that these sites are no different than conversation was for previous generations, and that conversation seldom generated big ideas either, and one would be right.

BUT the analogy isn’t perfect. For one thing, social networking sites are the primary form of communication among young people, and they are supplanting print, which is where ideas have typically gestated. For another, social networking sites engender habits of mind that are inimical to the kind of deliberate discourse that gives rise to ideas. Instead of theories, hypotheses and grand arguments, we get instant 140-character tweets about eating a sandwich or watching a TV show. While social networking may enlarge one’s circle and even introduce one to strangers, this is not the same thing as enlarging one’s intellectual universe. Indeed, the gab of social networking tends to shrink one’s universe to oneself and one’s friends, while thoughts organized in words, whether online or on the page, enlarge one’s focus.

Can't there just be a rule? If you ever trash Twitter because someone tweets about eating a sandwich for lunch, we all just agree that person is too clueless to listen to any more? That tired old line has been used so often and the only thing it shows is one's ignorance of Twitter.

But more to the point, Gabler is reminiscing about a world that never existed. "Instead of theories, hypotheses and grand arguments, we get instant 140-character tweets about eating a sandwich or watching a TV show." And in what world did millions of people sit around and discuss theories, hypotheses and grand arguments? Sure there are some places where some people did that, and they still do. In fact, those "theories, hypotheses and grand arguments" appear to happen much more frequently, in much more detail and with a wider audience online these days. I often find out about them via the smart people I follow on Twitter.

And while social media may not have enlarged Gabler's intellectual universe, it has massively enlarged mine. Thanks to Twitter specifically, I've been able to meet tons of fascinatingly smart people I never would have met otherwise. Sure, not all of it is brilliant talk, but Gabler seems to make the same fundamental error that so many "back in my day" people make: which is to assume that because a tool can be used for random conversation that somehow cancels out intelligent conversation. I can talk about the sandwich I ate for lunch and I can discuss big intellectually stimulating ideas.

But Gabler seems to have this view that because some people discuss stuff he finds beneath him, they can't possibly also be discussing important stuff. He also seems to ignore that back in his mythical "good old days" people discussed equally as ridiculous things:

The collection itself is exhausting: what each of our friends is doing at that particular moment and then the next moment and the next one; who Jennifer Aniston is dating right now; which video is going viral on YouTube this hour; what Princess Letizia or Kate Middleton is wearing that day. In effect, we are living within the nimbus of an informational Gresham’s law in which trivial information pushes out significant information, but it is also an ideational Gresham’s law in which information, trivial or not, pushes out ideas.

If Gabler thinks that there wasn't similar gossip and banal discussions back when he wasn't an old man screaming at kids on his lawn, he apparently wasn't paying very close attention to what the people around him were discussing. There are plenty of "big ideas" out there, contrary to Gabler's claim, but the only really stupid one I've seen lately is this one... from Gabler. With that I'm going back to reading some more interesting and thought provoking ideas... which I most likely found on Twitter.

Filed Under: communication, ideas, neal gabler, people, social media

Guy Who Claims To Have Come Up With Kung Fu Panda Loses In Court

from the too-bad,-so-sad dept

With pretty much every super successful book, movie or TV show, someone pops up out of the woodwork to claim that it was really "their" idea, and they deserve some ridiculously large cut of the revenue. In the case of the movie Kung Fu Panda, we've already seen at least two different people claim credit. The first one has gone to trial... and lost. The jury actually found that Dreamworks had entered into an "implied" contract with writer Terrence Dunn... but then also found that they didn't actually use any of his ideas, so it didn't matter. These kinds of lawsuits really are nuisance suits, but rather than go back to obscurity, Dunn has already announced plans to appeal.

Filed Under: copies, ideas, kung fu panda

University Of Copenhagen Giving Away Patents For Free... If You Have A Credible Plan

from the tech-transfer dept

We've talked in the past about the whole concept of tech transfer offices at universities. This was an idea that became popular a couple decades back, that universities, with all their researchers, could create a profit center by licensing or selling the patents that come from university research. The reality is that this has been a dismal failure. Most universities (like many patent holders who aren't actually building products in the marketplace) totally and completely overvalue their patents, making it completely uneconomical for anyone to license the patents. In the end, this has made the vast majority of tech transfer offices cost centers rather than profit centers. They hired lots of people, which is expensive, and they haven't seen much of a return on it.

Even worse, this focus on locking up knowledge and research from universities has been disastrous on actual advancement and the spreading of knowledge, which many of these universities claim is a key goal. Professors are told not to share results or data or plans with professors at other universities, for fear of "losing out" on a patent. The whole academic culture of sharing and building on each others' knowledge is held back tremendously. It's a huge shame.

Thankfully, a few universities are realizing this and are starting to push back. Last year, we noted that the University of Glasgow was freeing up most of its "intellectual property," for anyone who could use it. And, now, hrusha alerts us to the news that the University of Copenhagen (known as KU) is offering free licenses to anyone who can present a "credible" plan for bringing a product to market within 3 years.

It's not a totally open and free system, but it's certainly better than most. The encouragement on commercialization will hopefully help get the practical implications of the research out into the marketplace quickly. I'm not so sure how they determine what is and what is not a "credible plan," so hopefully they err on the side of granting such licenses whenever possible. Hopefully more and more universities will begin to realize that locking up research and expecting to get paid for it is a dead end road that goes against the core principles of most institutes of higher learning.

Filed Under: copenhagen, free, ideas, patents

We Need To Let Go Of The Idea That Our Creations Are Utterly Ours

from the they're-not-and-have-never-been dept

We've written about Kirby Ferguson's excellent Everything Is A Remix project, and the folks over at On The Media have a nice interview with Ferguson. The whole thing is worth a read (it's pretty short, actually), but there were two great quotes that I thought were worth highlighting. He's asked if he's "sympathetic" to copyright holders, and responds:

I'm sympathetic to most of them. It's natural in our culture to want to protect what you feel you worked hard for or invested in. Unfortunately, I don't think it's as natural to be aware of the innumerable ways we take from our culture in order to create these things. We need to let go of the idea that our creations are utterly ours. Creating something new entitles us to some rights, but not to perpetual monopoly, which is the direction we're headed in.

That bolded part is the key. People have a natural inclination to give themselves more credit for their own work, and diminish the contributions of everyone who came before them whose work was instrumental to their own. I definitely recognize the natural instincts there as well, but I agree with Ferguson that it's important, culturally, to get past that.

He's also asked where he'd like to see things go "culturally in terms of copyright and patent laws" and he answers:

I think we have to stop conceiving of remixing as a kind of theft. It's not theft, it's not piracy, it's a legitimate effort to make something new. That effort deserves some respect, if not for the results, then for the intent. So I think step one is to stop treating remixing as theft and bring the penalties for unauthorized remixing back down to earth.

This can't be said enough, even though it's rarely said at all. I've explained in the past how insulting it is for people to make criticisms like "create your own!" when they see amazing creative new works built by remixing the works of those who came before. If you can't respect amazing creations built off of others' work as being something amazing and new, then you lead a culturally deficient life.

Filed Under: culture, ideas, kirby ferguson, remix

Just Because Two Things Are Similar Doesn't Mean One 'Rips Off' The Other

from the that's-crazy dept

I was recently alerted to the fact that comic artist Kate Beaton got quite upset at a guy named Chris Bouldin, claiming that he had somehow "ripped her off" with a graphic he had created for a t-shirt. So, let's take a look at the "ripoff." Here's Kate's drawing: And here's Chris's supposed ripoff: Huh? Am I missing something here? They may be similar ideas, but otherwise they're pretty different all around. As we recently pointed out, different people come up with the same jokes all the time, and it's not a "ripoff" at all. Even if Chris had seen Kate's original, his work is quite different, and hardly a ripoff in any way shape or form.

Repeat it with me: You cannot own an idea.

And yet, so many people like to think they can, even when it's a totally simplistic idea that lots of other people also likely had. And, apparently blogs are springing up to "call out" people who "ripoff" others. First, in the comments to Kate's complaint, someone suggests submitting the story to You Thought We Wouldn't Notice, which is a blog that tries to call out and shame cases where they believe there's been "a blatant rip off of a creative work." And, just as I was going through that blog and shaking my head at the sheer disingenuousness of it, Parker sent over a very similar (if much more obnoxiously named) blog, Copy©unts. That one mainly focuses on ad agencies doing things similar to what others have done.

Now, to be clear, I've always pointed out in the past that sometimes shaming someone for blatant copying can be much more effective than reaching for the old "copyright" claim. You only have one reputation (it's a scarce good!), and if it goes bad, there are consequences. That's why social pressure can be much more effective than a legal attack to deal with questionable behavior.

But, here's the thing, these sites and efforts really seem to stretch the definition of what's "questionable." As seen in the very example up top, just because two people have a similar idea, that doesn't mean that one is a "ripoff" or that the person should be shamed. Lots of people have similar ideas, and even if one person is inspired by another, taking a stab at doing something different and unique around the same theme shouldn't be seen as a ripoff at all.

Certainly, some of the items that appear on both blogs do appear to be clear attempts to appropriate someone else's work in questionable ways and I can see how naming and shaming them might make some sense. But a lot of them really just appear to be similar ideas, or even very different attempts to build on a good idea. Take, for example, this post, which compares a bit of artwork of a little boy crying, with an advertisement that includes a boy crying:

Again, I'm at a loss here. Yes, they're both boys, and there's a blue background in both images... but that's about it. Suggesting that one is a "copy" of the other seems ridiculous.

And that's where these things start to become so troubling for me. They seem to become less about calling out misappropriation situations, and much more about pretending that an idea can be owned. Unfortunately, efforts like these merely perpetuate the myth that you can own an idea (even if others come up with the same thing independently). And that's really troubling.

Hell, if we're going to go down that route, can't we just say that one of these two blogs "ripped" off the other? After all, they seem to have the same basic idea, and the posts actually have a very familiar feel to them. So, damn it, what a ripoff! Everyone complain to one of these sites about how the other one "ripped them off!" It'll be so meta.

Filed Under: copying, culture, ideas, ownership, ripping off

Winklevii Trying Again: Suing Facebook Yet Again With A Different Argument

from the holy-crap:-give-up-already dept

Yesterday, we had a story about how the Winklevoss twins had finally realized that they had no chance to get a Supreme Court appeal of their own attempt to back out of a "settlement deal" with Facebook that made them at least $160 million richer (probably more by now). Like most people who read that story, we assumed that the Winklevii and partner Divya Narendra, had simply decided to take their millions and sulk. Instead, it looks like they are simply trying again with a different legal strategy.

Yes, a day after admitting that they wouldn't file a Supreme Court appeal, they instead made a new filing in the district court in Boston, once again attacking the settlement agreement (which they had agreed to), asking the judge to investigate if Facebook "intentionally or inadvertently suppressed evidence."

It is true that some instant messages that Zuckerberg wrote while he was supposed to be working with the Winklevii emerged after the settlement had been agreed to. The Winklevii didn't focus on those in their original attempt to back out of the settlement, instead claiming that Facebook had mislead them about the value of Facebook shares. However, now it appears they're starting again using the instant messages as evidence, and claiming that Facebook withheld the relevant evidence, and saying that they wouldn't have settled if they'd seen that evidence.

The thing is, while the evidence does make Mark Zuckerberg look like a jerk, I'm not sure it actually helps the Winklevii's overall argument. And, frankly, the whole thing remains totally pointless. The Winklevii failed to build a serious competitor, but we're talking about what was effectively the first few months of both companies (Facebook and ConnectU). Nothing about that means that they should get any credit whatsoever for what Facebook became. The fact that they already got $160+ million out of this is more than enough for their own failure to build a successful company. They should drop this effort, and maybe spend some time -- and maybe some of their piles of money -- looking into ways to deflate their massive sense of entitlement for something they had nothing to do with.

Filed Under: appeal, ideas, winklevoss
Companies: facebook

Winklevii Finally Realize That Appealing To The Supreme Court Is A Lost Cause; Will Have To Live With 'Just' $160 Million

from the poor-winklevii dept

When the Winklevoss twins lost at the appeals court for the second time, I had hoped that someone would sit them down and explain to them that there was simply no freaking way the Supreme Court would bother to hear an appeal on their case, in which they complain about how they settled for "only" $160 million for building a company that wasn't Facebook and wasn't very popular. And yet, they still insisted that they would appeal. I'm not sure who did it, but it appears that someone finally sat them down and explained to them how the Supreme Court works, what kinds of cases it takes, and how it would almost certainly react to a petition to hear their case... and it's finally dawned on them that this would be a good time to take the money (which is probably worth even more now thanks to Facebook's continued growth) and say, "thank you." Yes, it's true, the Winklevii have finally realized what the rest of the world realized a while ago: the case is done and there will be no appeal to the Supreme Court. I guess that storyline is now out of the running for the sequel movie to The Social Network. Thankfully, we've still got Paul Ceglia running around, and his story is a lot more entertaining anyway.

Filed Under: appeal, ideas, supreme court, winklevoss
Companies: facebook

Ideas Do Matter, But That Has Nothing To Do With 'Intellectual Property'

from the keep-up-folks dept

Glyn Moody points us to a website put together by Microsoft, Philips and DSM -- three giant companies that have relied heavily on intellectual property laws to fend off upstart competitors and disruptive innovation -- called Ideas Matter - the value of intellectual property. As you can tell from the title, the website focuses on two key points, which they then try to conflate as a single point: (1) Ideas matter and (2) because of that, intellectual property is important.

Of course, there's a huge problem with this: while ideas do matter, that has nothing to do with intellectual property. As people are quick to point out in our comments any time we suggest that ideas are being blocked or censored by intellectual property laws, such laws are not supposed to apply to ideas. In fact, it's explicit with both copyright and patent law. In copyright law, protection is supposed to be applied to expression, not ideas, and the difference is supposed to be key -- even if it isn't always observed. Similarly, with patents, protection is supposed to be applied to inventions, not ideas -- again even if that isn't regularly observed in practice.

To be honest, I find this particularly nefarious and disingenuous, in that any time people point out that ideas are being censored, defenders of IP laws insist that there's a split and "ideas" are not covered. Yet, when these same folks seek to push forth a propaganda campaign in support of greater protectionism, they use the claim that "ideas matter" to support those laws. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the site's name and premise itself, the rest of the site is filled with ridiculous and unsupported propaganda, such as this laughably misleading video that seems to assume that because certain things are protected by intellectual property laws, they wouldn't exist without them. It also tosses out ridiculous debunked industry figures on "losses" due to infringement. This is extreme propaganda.

Filed Under: copyright, ideas, intellectual property, patents
Companies: dsm, microsoft, philips

Winklevii Promise To Appeal To Supreme Court

from the and-the-court-will-laugh dept

Well, that didn't take long at all. We noted that the tone deaf Winklevoss twins would probably appeal their latest legal "loss," which "only" entitles them to the $160 million or so from their original settlement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Even while I said I expected them to appeal since they'd already gone this far, there was still a little voice in the back of my head saying they couldn't possibly think that the Supreme Court could see a Constitutional issue to consider in their case. And yet... hours later, the Winklevii lawyer has announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. And I will announce plans to not laugh out loud when the Supreme Court turns them down.

Filed Under: appeal, ideas, supreme court, winklevoss
Companies: connectu, facebook