Building a business based on protected IP and then going after violators is a lost cause! It's like the War on Terror or the War on Drugs. The sooner the US gives up on this an we come up with more innovative business models, the better off we will be.
Then why does McNeil PPC continue to produce Tylenol when there are plenty of generic versions of acetaminophen available?
You are right, this is branding/mindshare. Take any commodity and build a brand around it and now your commodity has an advantage in the marketplace. Branded commodities can still dominate the marketplace, as in your example, without any type of special rights on the formula of the product.
Just because something is no longer scarce does not mean the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
This is true but I think this statement does not fully acknowledge the Economics of Abundance. Let's take the analogy of snow (not air or water, all global warming issues aside). There is a saying in sales "this guy is so good he could sell snow to an Eskimo." This saying acknowledges that snow to an Eskimo is not a scarce resource. So, to an Eskimo, snow is not a resource worth paying for because it is so abundant. Of course, and Eskimo might need snow if it were not abundant, and might pay for it. And the maker of that snow might try to create whatever kind of monopoly it could so that it is the sole provider of snow. But really, the sales of the snow should be an open market to whoever can make it at the lowest cost, deliver it in the most innovative ways, ect.
It's the implementation of the idea, not the creating of the idea, that is rewarded.
Ideally, this would be true, and we should do all we can to make this true, but right now this is no longer true. You can now reap the rewards of a patent if you are of the owner of a patent by sewing innovators using that patent weather you as the patent holder are actually using it to produce innovative product or just sitting not it.
Then why does McNeil PPC continue to produce Tylenol when there are plenty of generic versions of acetaminophen available?
You are right, this is branding/mindshare. Take any commodity and build a brand around it and now your commodity has an advantage in the marketplace. Branded commodities can still dominate the marketplace, as in your example, without any type of special rights on the formula of the product.
Just because something is no longer scarce does not mean the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
This is true but I think this statement does not fully acknowledge the Economics of Abundance. Let's take the analogy of snow (not air or water, all global warming issues aside). There is a saying in sales "this guy is so good he could sell snow to an Eskimo." This saying acknowledges that snow to an Eskimo is not a scarce resource. So, to an Eskimo, snow is not a resource worth paying for because it is so abundant. Of course, and Eskimo might need snow if it were not abundant, and might pay for it. And the maker of that snow might try to create whatever kind of monopoly it could so that it is the sole provider of snow. But really, the sales of the snow should be an open market to whoever can make it at the lowest cost, deliver it in the most innovative ways, ect.
It's the implementation of the idea, not the creating of the idea, that is rewarded.
Ideally, this would be true, and we should do all we can to make this true, but right now this is no longer true. You can now reap the rewards of a patent if you are of the owner of a patent by sewing innovators using that patent weather you as the patent holder are actually using it to produce innovative product or just sitting not it.
I think that people keep mentioning price fixing because you say "the market," Mike. The market Mike is talking about is the market of ideas, not governments fixing the prices of products or services in the products or services market. Patents make it possible for an artificial "Idea Market," artificial prices and artificial scarcity on ideas. Government price fixing is just like government grating permission to innovate. Let the market determine the price Adam Smith style.
Look at all of the innovation that occurred in the web 2.0 space in such a small amount of time. Imagine if all of those simple business methods, design, and function concepts had been patented. There would be little innovation occurring. Look at industries that thrive with no intellectual property protection such as the fashion industry, or the restaurant industry. In these businesses you have pure innovation (in all facets of these business) occurring for the sake of competition. Consumers benefit from this competition and no business have the luxury of laziness. Laissez- faire!!!
So what you are saying is that innovation is no longer scarce because the cost of implementing innovation in some cases is zero. Therefore, copyright and patent are no longer necessary as the man-made scarcity market that they represent. There are plenty of examples of innovation in the last 10 years where IP hording was not necessary because the innovation was not easily duplicateable. IP hording is for the lazy, unimaginative, and unmotivated, and it is in the interests of these types of parties that it stays around. True innovation requires no IP hording, and rewards can still be reaped in their absence.
James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds" said "Intellectual-property rules are clearly necessary to spur innovation?" Very strange. Innovation is spurred by the need to survive and thrive.
Clearly, the lawyer's think their own business plan trumps their clients business plans.Clearly, the lawyer's think their own business plan trumps their client’s business plans. This is the second time lawyers have tried to interfere with a major web 2.0 innovation (O'Reilly lawyers going after other conferences organizers calling themselves web 2.0).
When I saw Santa Barbara and newspapers not getting it, I instantly through of Doc Searls, a Santa Barbara resident and a citizen journalist. Here is his take. http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/04/04#newspressonward
You may as well say that if you can organize the efforts of a couple thousand motivated and educated people, you can alter behavior and enforce unenforceable restrictions on billions of people whose ingenuity will always outsmart anything a small group of people will come up with. This man on the moon quite is the dumbest one I have heard all year.
Not totally related, but there is a guy in rural Indiana who became a DIY internet and VOIP service provider to a couple hundred (or thousand?) customers with hacked WRT54Gs and hubs. His operation is threatened by monopolistic regulation. http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1626.html
How can a western company possible understand the intricacies of incentive of a culture so different as China and make such a big bet on it? Seems silly.
Here is one for the "lost sales theory": let’s say you make a demo version of your software that times out after 30 days. Lets that you are getting 10% of the demo downloaders to upgrade to the full version. Are you going to claim that 90% of you market is gone because you lost that sale? Wake up and make real value for paying customers, damn it, and shut up!!
Yes, it is time for Firefox-like evangelism og OggVorbis! Mozilla needs to make an OggVorbis player, and Apple should provide a firmware update to play OggVorbis. Death to software patents!!!!!
I meant to say "Some authors make Creative Commons works as and advertisement for themselves (the author of the work)."
And back to the though on music videos, they want you to "pay" in some way if you want to see the video, as if you are already a fan. But, if you are not yet a fan, they want you to see a music video because you are a prospective fan, in which case it is free. So, they just want to know if anyone would pay or not, and if they will charge them, even though the traditional motive to create something like a music video is to promote record sales.
On the post: Alberto Gonzales' Biggest Priority... Is Stricter Copyright Laws?
On the post: If Resources Aren't Scarce, Why Do You Need A Market?
You are right, this is branding/mindshare. Take any commodity and build a brand around it and now your commodity has an advantage in the marketplace. Branded commodities can still dominate the marketplace, as in your example, without any type of special rights on the formula of the product.
Just because something is no longer scarce does not mean the laws of supply and demand do not apply.
This is true but I think this statement does not fully acknowledge the Economics of Abundance. Let's take the analogy of snow (not air or water, all global warming issues aside). There is a saying in sales "this guy is so good he could sell snow to an Eskimo." This saying acknowledges that snow to an Eskimo is not a scarce resource. So, to an Eskimo, snow is not a resource worth paying for because it is so abundant. Of course, and Eskimo might need snow if it were not abundant, and might pay for it. And the maker of that snow might try to create whatever kind of monopoly it could so that it is the sole provider of snow. But really, the sales of the snow should be an open market to whoever can make it at the lowest cost, deliver it in the most innovative ways, ect.
It's the implementation of the idea, not the creating of the idea, that is rewarded.
Ideally, this would be true, and we should do all we can to make this true, but right now this is no longer true. You can now reap the rewards of a patent if you are of the owner of a patent by sewing innovators using that patent weather you as the patent holder are actually using it to produce innovative product or just sitting not it.
On the post: If Resources Aren't Scarce, Why Do You Need A Market?
On the post: If Resources Aren't Scarce, Why Do You Need A Market?
Look at all of the innovation that occurred in the web 2.0 space in such a small amount of time. Imagine if all of those simple business methods, design, and function concepts had been patented. There would be little innovation occurring. Look at industries that thrive with no intellectual property protection such as the fashion industry, or the restaurant industry. In these businesses you have pure innovation (in all facets of these business) occurring for the sake of competition. Consumers benefit from this competition and no business have the luxury of laziness. Laissez- faire!!!
On the post: If Resources Aren't Scarce, Why Do You Need A Market?
Innovation is not scarce
On the post: Free Trade Agreements That Guarantee Monopolies?
On the post: After Getting Shut Out Of Google, Belgian Newspapers Agree To Do What They Should Have Done In The First Place
On the post: Some Suggestions On How To Celebrate World Intellectual Property Day
On the post: Arcane Senate Rule Helps Preserve Antiquated Senate Practice
gee, I wonder...
On the post: Can We Please Have Politicians Understand The Internet Before They Regulate It?
I propose...
On the post: Can Web 2.0 Mashups Survive When Lawyers Show Up? Amazon Sues Alexaholic/Statsaholic
FUD peddling lawyers
On the post: Not Disclosing Your Pump-And-Dump Past Might Make It Harder To Sell Your Company
ouch!
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/13/shannon-terry-is-pissed-off-threatens-lawsuit-against -techcrunch/
On the post: Fired Reporters Start Their Own News Website
Doc Searls's take
http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/04/04#newspressonward
On the post: Connecticut AG Asserts Jurisdiction Over Any Web Site With Ads; Wants MySpace To Verify Users' Ages
On the post: Just How Many MP3 Patents Are There?
On the post: FCC Says Rural Telcos Have To Play Nice With VoIP
On the post: Autodesk CEO Trots Out BSA Line On Software Piracy
Here is one for the "lost sales theory": let’s say you make a demo version of your software that times out after 30 days. Lets that you are getting 10% of the demo downloaders to upgrade to the full version. Are you going to claim that 90% of you market is gone because you lost that sale? Wake up and make real value for paying customers, damn it, and shut up!!
On the post: Jury Tells Microsoft To Pay $1.5 Billion To Alcatel-Lucent Over MP3 Patents
On the post: Can We Get A Few Morons In A Hurry Over To Skywalker Ranch?
On the post: Product Placement Or A Novel? Does It Make A Difference?
And back to the though on music videos, they want you to "pay" in some way if you want to see the video, as if you are already a fan. But, if you are not yet a fan, they want you to see a music video because you are a prospective fan, in which case it is free. So, they just want to know if anyone would pay or not, and if they will charge them, even though the traditional motive to create something like a music video is to promote record sales.
Next >>