If I spend $1 million to develop something innovative and the guy next to me stole that innovation; he effectively stole $1 million from me. That's a huge disincentive to spending another million to innovate. Copyrights and patents don't stifle innovation, they protect the creators and the resources they expended. To drive innovation, people need to innovate, not steal. If I can't copy the iPhone, then that drives me to create something even better, not just an iPhone with a few little tweaks.
For those that disagree, I challenge you to open source all of the code you're working on for your companies. Then, I'll set up an exact clone of your application (including using your logo) and start making money from your work. That would encourage you to innovate right? Cool, innovate, then I'll use the new code you made, along with the new logo and continue making money from your work.
How is THAT fair?
If you bake amazing cookies and sell them in a shop, should that cookie recipe be given away to a competitor? Intellectual property is a critical piece of developing a competitive advantage. Take away that competitive advantage and we might as well be the Soviet Union.
If you create something, you should have the right to profit from it. If you look at the innovation in China, especially in software, it's very flat because the protections there are almost non-existent. You build something there and it's copied almost instantly, so the incentive to innovate is much, much lower.
Which industry? I think there are impedance issues with patents in the faddish Web 2.0 world, but they work fine in many other industries. E.g. In jet engines, where the life cycle of a design might be 30 years, "first to market" is almost irrelevant.
Same here. I'd rather see copyright in the 15-20 year range with an optional extension that must be registered and paid for. Especially, copyrights held by corporations and not individuals.
There may be less innovation in China - not because there are no protections but because they are still playing catch up to the developed world. It is a lot more effective to not reinvent the wheel if there are no need to reinvent it.
Innovation happens when you push the boundaries for what is possible - if you are nowhere near the boundaries then the fastest way to get there is to copy your neighbors map and use that to find the border. Creating protections will just make it harder for them to catch up and will make it take longer for them to get competitive innovation.
You are missing the point. The point is that innovation drives advancements technology, and litigation stifles innovation. Money that companies spend litigating products which will likely be outdated / deprecated in a couple years is not money well spent.
So what if Samsung and Apple both make use of a light-weight rectangular touchscreen? Consumers benefit more when there are competing interests than when there is a monopoly. Consumers benefit when there are two separate branches iterating outward and improving something very basic.
Why doesn't Samsung "innovate" and build a better touchscreen instead of copying someone else. Innovation != copying someone's work and making marginal improvement. Apple didn't copy the Palm Treo or the Blackberry when they built the iPhone. They saw what those products could and couldn't do, so they made something better. THAT'S innovation. Samsung's copying Apple isn't innovation, it's lazy. Consumers don't benefit from "me too" products, unless we treat all technology as a commodity.
your post is full of unproven assertions and rhetoric.
>If I spend $1 million to develop something innovative and the guy next to me stole that innovation; he effectively stole $1 million from me. That's a huge disincentive to spending another million to innovate.
The two are not (directly) related to each other, if you make a profit on the 1 million dollar investment, it doesn't matter how many people "steal it" (bullshit rhetorical term), you WILL invest the next one million dollars. You are totally discounting incentives such as first to market.
>For those that disagree, I challenge you to open source all of the code you're working on for your companies. Then, I'll set up an exact clone of your application (including using your logo) and start making money from your work. That would encourage you to innovate right? Cool, innovate, then I'll use the new code you made, along with the new logo and continue making money from your work.
This is a ridiculous straw man, nobody here is talking about abolishing all aspects of intellectual property law including trademarks.
> Intellectual property is a critical piece of developing a competitive advantage. Take away that competitive advantage and we might as well be the Soviet Union.
It can just as easily be said that intellectual property is a critical piece of tactics to stifle competition, take that away and we have a freer market.
>If you create something, you should have the right to profit from it.
You have no right to profit from anything, the market decides these things (when free of government distortion). I want to profit from posting on HN all day, but that's just not in the cards.
>If you look at the innovation in China, especially in software, it's very flat because the protections there are almost non-existent.
another completely unproven assertion, their are numerous indications that the lack of protections is exactly what is powering Chinese economic growth[1], and powered American industrial growth pre 1900s[2], and powered German chemistry and pharmaceutical industries in the early 1900s[3].
Look, i'm not saying abolish all forms of "intellectual property". Simply that you should not start from the A Priori position that intellectual property is always beneficial.
For those that disagree, I challenge you to open source all of the code you're working on for your companies. Then, I'll set up an exact clone of your application (including using your logo) and start making money from your work. That would encourage you to innovate right? Cool, innovate, then I'll use the new code you made, along with the new logo and continue making money from your work.
How is THAT fair?
If you bake amazing cookies and sell them in a shop, should that cookie recipe be given away to a competitor? Intellectual property is a critical piece of developing a competitive advantage. Take away that competitive advantage and we might as well be the Soviet Union.
If you create something, you should have the right to profit from it. If you look at the innovation in China, especially in software, it's very flat because the protections there are almost non-existent. You build something there and it's copied almost instantly, so the incentive to innovate is much, much lower.
Be careful what you wish for.