When Ideas Are Easy And Execution Is Hard... It Makes Sense To Share Your Ideas

from the be-open,-be-good dept

We've been hitting on the theme that ideas are easy, while execution is hard for a while now -- and a friend pointed me to a worthwhile blog post by Brad Burnham, an experienced venture capitalist, now a partner with Union Square Ventures. Burnham muses that the successful entrepreneurs he's backed tended to be the ones who were the most open about their ideas, not just with him, but with everyone. What it really comes back to is this idea that ideas are easy and execution is difficult. The entrepreneur who is living and breathing the idea (and has probably already tested out a bunch of different related ideas) is likely to gain a lot more from the conversation with an outsider (even a potential competitor) than that other person is going to gain from talking to the entrepreneur. While there is an old-school mentality that you need to keep things secret, history has shown that that tends not to be the best way to grow a successful business. When you do that, you end up making all sorts of mistakes that a few conversations may have helped you avoid.

An interesting parallel to this debate is the discussion we had last year about noncompetes. What the research there has shown is that a big part of the reason for Silicon Valley's success is the fact that noncompete agreements are unenforceable in California. What happened, then, was much more job-hopping, and a much faster dispersion not just of ideas, but of problem solving and innovation across the industry. In AnnaLee Saxenian's book that kicked off this debate, she noted that Silicon Valley culture was such that many engineers here spent plenty of time discussing their biggest challenges with direct competitors, just to get better ideas -- believing that solving the big problems would work out better in the end for everyone, and that holding back ideas didn't solve anything. Amusingly, in that case, Burnham's partner at Union Square Ventures, Fred Wilson, took the other side: favoring noncompetes (though, I get the feeling Wilson's changing his mind as the evidence has been presented).

This also, by the way, goes completely against the theory (chiefly propagated by supporters of a stronger patent system) that without patents, the world would devolve into an innovation-free zone where trade secrecy ruled. That seems unlikely to happen, based on exactly what Burnham and others have noticed. Keeping an idea secret not only is unlikely to be effective, it can often stifle the necessary development. Thus, it will be the companies that are more open and free with their ideas that dominate the market. The key reason why, of course, goes back to what we talked about at the beginning. Ideas are certainly important, but it's execution that's the key to success -- and being more free in sharing your ideas will often help you execute better.

Burnham also asks about whether or not it's possible to "model" this openness -- and I think it is. In fact, in many ways it matches the infinite goods economic model we've been discussing, with the ideas representing the infinite goods, and the execution being the main scarcity. So, in the same way that freeing up music helps expand the opportunities for every other area of the music business, opening up your idea is likely to open up many huge new opportunities for the entrepreneur in how to execute successfully. If you really want to model it mathematically, you could probably build something based on the economic models that made Paul Romer famous (and should eventually net him a Nobel prize), but that might be overkill for what Burnham is looking for. However, if you're familiar with Romer's work, applying it to this scenario should make you see how much more powerful sharing ideas can be vs. keeping them secret. It's not just a small edge -- it can be a huge difference. I've been working on a few simpler models myself that I'm hoping to share (openly and freely!) soon enough, in the hopes that others can improve on them.

Filed Under: brad burnham, economics, execution, ideas, noncompetes, openness, sharing

Myhrvold's Myth: Invention Capital

from the cute-phrase,-dumb-idea dept

Nathan Myhrvold may have a way with words, but it doesn't mean that what he's doing with Intellectual Ventures makes any sense. At the D: conference yesterday, Myrhvold tried to position his company as being in the "invention capital" business, talking about how he's creating a model to fund inventions, and even comparing himself to Thomas Edison (while dancing around several questions that tried to get him to point out what the company has actually done other than hoard patents). This is a modification on the easily debunked claim he made a couple weeks ago about how owning a patent and not using it to build a product was the same as investing in a company and not working there.

But, the real problem goes right back to the core issue that was brought out in Malcolm Gladwell's profile of Myhrvold. Ideas are popping up everywhere. It's the execution that matters. Lots of folks are having similar ideas at about the same time, but those ideas are meaningless without the corresponding execution (at which point many people often realize the original idea wasn't that interesting in the first place). So, with ideas being plentiful and execution being scarce, it doesn't make sense to "invest" in ideas separate from the execution. The only way that it would make sense is if you then were taking those ideas and artificially trying to limit their usefulness -- which is exactly what Myhrvold is doing with IV. He's artificially trying to limit the use of ideas, and make it more expensive for anyone to execute on those ideas. The very concept of what he's doing is to hold back innovation and progress. That's the exact opposite of what the patent system was intended to do.

Filed Under: execution, ideas, invention capitalist, nathan myhrvold
Companies: intellectual ventures

Ideas Are Easy... Execution Is Difficult

from the so-why-do-we-protect-the-ideas? dept

It's an ongoing theme around here, but ideas are everywhere. The real trick to making something great often has extremely little to do with the idea, and much more to do with the execution. That's where the real innovation occurs -- in taking an idea and trying to figure out how to make it useful. It's that process that's important, much more than the original idea. As nearly anyone who has brought a product from conception to market will tell you, what eventually succeeds in the market is almost always radically different than the original "idea." That's part of the reason why patents are so often harmful to innovation. The patent is for that core idea, which is rarely the key in making something successful. But by limiting who can innovate off of the idea (or just by making it much more expensive) you're limiting that process of innovation.

Some people disagree with this, but the failure of Cambrian House, once again seems to demonstrate the vast gap between ideas and execution. Cambrian House was a well-hyped company that tried to "crowdsource" new companies and products. I've paid attention to them for a while, since their business model had some similarities to what we do with the Techdirt Insight Community. However, as the founder of Cambrian House admitted in explaining the company's changing plans, it wasn't difficult to get people to come up with all sorts of interesting and exciting ideas -- but where the company failed was in getting anyone to actually execute on any of those ideas. Ideas are a starting point -- but it's high time that we stopped worshipping the idea, and started recognizing how much more important execution is in driving innovation.

Filed Under: execution, ideas, innovation
Companies: cambrian house

You Succeed By Executing Well, Not By Gathering Patents

from the rembrants-in-the-garbage dept

Patent attorney Joe Root sent us a link to an interesting essay on how companies became way too focused on intellectual property over executing sound business strategy in the late 90's, thanks in large part to the book, Rembrandts In The Attic. Root points out that the poster-children in that book were companies that focused too much on patents alone, and failed to execute in the marketplace, leading to failures. At the same time, the company that was held up in the book as missing out on the patent train was Amazon.com, which the book predicted would lead to Amazon's downfall. Amazingly, the authors of the book even focused in on Amazon's failure to patent its "one-click" ordering system:

"Amazon's commercial fortunes would have been far better served had it patented technologies truly strategic to its business, such as the one-click ordering system that the company pioneered and that is used widely by on-line retailers today. That was a real business method choke point... that Amazon could have controlled to no small advantage. But as it is, without that proprietary advantage and with its brand strength eroding, companies like Virgin Records and PetSmart are unafraid to compete directly against the giant on-line retailer. Don't be surprised if Amazon's stock market fortunes head south when investors realize this fact."

Of course, as most everyone probably already knows, and as Root highlights in the essay, Amazon actually was in the process of patenting the one-click feature. Yet, rather than helping the company, that one patent (to this day, actually!) has become a symbol of just how screwed up the patent system has become. It also created tremendous ill-will towards Amazon until the company was forced to back down from attempts to enforce it.

The key realization that comes from Root's essay (which also dips into military strategy) is that, in the big rush to focus on the value of "IP" and patents in particular, many companies out there forgot that patents are rather meaningless if you can't actually execute on a business strategy providing something that the market actually values at a price they can afford.

Filed Under: execution, patents
Companies: amazon

Just Copying Someone's Technology Isn't Enough

from the much-more-going-on dept

When discussing patent related stories, people often claim that without patents, copycat companies would simply copy everything and put the original creators out of business. There are a number of reasons why this isn't true (and plenty of historical evidence that it's not true at all), but for a good example of this at work, just take a look at Google. Google is by far the dominant search engine out there, and it's only been growing. It was first to market with a quality search engine, but many studies have pointed out that Yahoo and Microsoft have both caught up (and possibly passed) Google in terms of search quality. And yet, Google keeps growing. There are plenty of reasons for this, from Google's "celebrity" (as the article implies) to Google's clean interface to people generally trusting Google more than those other providers (to date, Google has done much less to piss off most people). None of those things have anything to do with the technology alone. There's this view among patent system supporters that the technology is everything, when it's really just a component in terms of what makes a business. Copying the technology is one thing, but there are advantages to being first to market, executing well, treating customers right and building a reputation. Just copying someone's technology won't get you very far on most of those other points, and shows that focusing solely on patents as a competitive advantage is unlikely to get you very far.

Filed Under: execution, marketing, reputation, technology
Companies: google