Intellectual Property and the Structure of Human Action

[Zlaxer]

I don't have a problem with reverse engineering.

So you're cool with the following scenario -

Startup A spends a cool $2,000,000 (all of their seed cash) developing the latest and greatest medical diagnostic software. Company B buys a copy, reverse engineers it at a cost of $100,000 and then proceeds to undercut Startup A in the market. That's apparently OK in StA- and Fife- World.

Keeping in mind that Startup A is the first to the market with this technology and has significant advantages in market share that Company B does not possess, while Company B can only begin the process of reverse engineering *after* the software hits the market, which means they have to spend considerable time reverse engineering and then using what they learned to develop their own software competitor.

No, I do not have a problem with it.

Even if Company B has a more massive infrastructure and can completely eclipse Company A in a matter of months?

Sorry - IMHO - your approach will fuck small guys everywhere more than the current patent field does.

[Speaker to Animals]

So you're cool with the following scenario -

Startup A spends a cool $2,000,000 (all of their seed cash) developing the latest and greatest medical diagnostic software. Company B buys a copy, reverse engineers it at a cost of $100,000 and then proceeds to undercut Startup A in the market. That's apparently OK in StA- and Fife- World.

Keeping in mind that Startup A is the first to the market with this technology and has significant advantages in market share that Company B does not possess, while Company B can only begin the process of reverse engineering *after* the software hits the market, which means they have to spend considerable time reverse engineering and then using what they learned to develop their own software competitor.

No, I do not have a problem with it.

Even if Company B has a more massive infrastructure and can completely eclipse Company A in a matter of months?

Sorry - IMHO - your approach will fuck small guys everywhere more than the current patent field does.

Why does that even matter?

The question here is whether the significant lead in bringing the novel software to market is worth the investment of researching the innovation that makes novel in the first place.

[Zlaxer]

Keeping in mind that Startup A is the first to the market with this technology and has significant advantages in market share that Company B does not possess, while Company B can only begin the process of reverse engineering *after* the software hits the market, which means they have to spend considerable time reverse engineering and then using what they learned to develop their own software competitor.

No, I do not have a problem with it.

Even if Company B has a more massive infrastructure and can completely eclipse Company A in a matter of months?

Sorry - IMHO - your approach will fuck small guys everywhere more than the current patent field does.

Why does that even matter?

The question here is whether the significant lead in bringing the novel software to market is worth the investment of researching the innovation that makes novel in the first place.

Because early leads to market are almost always never worth it for a startup in the absence of a patent. That is my experience watching what happens when Startup A has a Patent vs Startup C who does not. The Large Corporation As in today's economy can simply overwhelm a startup. Also, despite what you see on Shark Tank most inventors won't touch a startup in the absence of issued claims.

[Speaker to Animals]

Even if Company B has a more massive infrastructure and can completely eclipse Company A in a matter of months?

Sorry - IMHO - your approach will fuck small guys everywhere more than the current patent field does.

Why does that even matter?

The question here is whether the significant lead in bringing the novel software to market is worth the investment of researching the innovation that makes novel in the first place.

Because early leads to market are almost always never worth it for a startup in the absence of a patent. That is my experience watching what happens when Startup A has a Patent vs startup C who does not. The Large Corporation As in today's economy can simply overwhelm a startup. Also, despite what you see on Shark Tank most inventors won't touch a startup in the absence of issued claims.

I think that's ridiculous, dude. I think the more likely explanation for what you see is that these startup business models are totally dependent upon government intervention propping them up. We'd not have an economy like we have today without patents and you can't really point to the way things work now not working without patents as an argument in defense of patents.

[Zlaxer]

Why does that even matter?

The question here is whether the significant lead in bringing the novel software to market is worth the investment of researching the innovation that makes novel in the first place.

Because early leads to market are almost always never worth it for a startup in the absence of a patent. That is my experience watching what happens when Startup A has a Patent vs startup C who does not. The Large Corporation As in today's economy can simply overwhelm a startup. Also, despite what you see on Shark Tank most inventors won't touch a startup in the absence of issued claims.

I think that's ridiculous, dude.

Why? on what evidence?

[Speaker to Animals]

Because early leads to market are almost always never worth it for a startup in the absence of a patent. That is my experience watching what happens when Startup A has a Patent vs startup C who does not. The Large Corporation As in today's economy can simply overwhelm a startup. Also, despite what you see on Shark Tank most inventors won't touch a startup in the absence of issued claims.

I think that's ridiculous, dude.

Why? on what evidence?

Based on the part of the quote you cut out:

I think the more likely explanation for what you see is that these startup business models are totally dependent upon government intervention propping them up. We'd not have an economy like we have today without patents and you can't really point to the way things work now not working without patents as an argument in defense of patents.

[Speaker to Animals]

Innovation in the open source world shows you how software innovation happens without patents. There are different relationships and incentives to innovate in very different ways. It's more collaborative. We have seen much more innovation in open source than closed source in the past twenty years as well. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

[Zlaxer]

I think that's ridiculous, dude.

Why? on what evidence?

Based on the part of the quote you cut out:

I think the more likely explanation for what you see is that these startup business models are totally dependent upon government intervention propping them up. We'd not have an economy like we have today without patents and you can't really point to the way things work now not working without patents as an argument in defense of patents.

How does that address my point about startups being overwhelmed by an established large corporate fast follower?

[Speaker to Animals]

Why? on what evidence?

Based on the part of the quote you cut out:

I think the more likely explanation for what you see is that these startup business models are totally dependent upon government intervention propping them up. We'd not have an economy like we have today without patents and you can't really point to the way things work now not working without patents as an argument in defense of patents.

How does that address my point about startups being overwhelmed by an established large corporate fast follower?

The follow up post:

Innovation in the open source world shows you how software innovation happens without patents. There are different relationships and incentives to innovate in very different ways. It's more collaborative. We have seen much more innovation in open source than closed source in the past twenty years as well. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

The problem is that you are fixating on the business model of gaining patents and building a kind of castle strategy in the marketplace where you keep competition out of the market.

The business models surrounding open source software show you a completely different paradigm. You just focus on the wrong strategies to make money.

[brewster]

So you're cool with the following scenario -

Startup A spends a cool $2,000,000 (all of their seed cash) developing the latest and greatest medical diagnostic software. Company B buys a copy, reverse engineers it at a cost of $100,000 and then proceeds to undercut Startup A in the market. That's apparently OK in StA- and Fife- World.

Keeping in mind that Startup A is the first to the market with this technology and has significant advantages in market share that Company B does not possess, while Company B can only begin the process of reverse engineering *after* the software hits the market, which means they have to spend considerable time reverse engineering and then using what they learned to develop their own software competitor.

No, I do not have a problem with it.

Even if Company B has a more massive infrastructure and can completely eclipse Company A in a matter of months?

Sorry - IMHO - your approach will fuck small guys everywhere more than the current patent field does.

LOL, exactly what I was going to say if you hadn't. This is how MS, Google etc got so big, they make you an offer, if you don't take it they copy you, leaving you gasping for cash with your only recourse a long patent court battle. Remember Netscape? A patent is simply a licence to sue, there's no Patent Police to protect you.

I love how every discussion of the govt here is so black and white, "don't fix it, get rid of it". Like all parts of the govt, the Patent Office is only as good as the way it's run, and especially funded. You can't have a good Patent Office, SEC or IRS if you don't fund them. No one is accusing it of fucking up on actual mechanisms, it's just seriously gone off the rails in software. Drugs are somewhere in between, they reward bullshit that protects drugs without actually improving them. The number of applications has skyrocketed, but the PTO doesn't have the funds to dig into the gazillion applications they receive, so they just approve and let the courts sort it out. It bears a strong resemblance to how the bond rating agencies gave AAA to issues they couldn't actually understand.