Comments

Of course, ideas are imperative as they've always been ("Hmm...that round thing rolls, maybe if I made a couple of 'em...humm...wonder how four would work...") However, a patent does not a product (or market) make. The challenge is translating "killer ideas" into something that is: a. useful; b. marketable. These are two of the biggest issues that some of my scary smart clients struggle with ("It'll change the world!" "Yes, but will the world care (or pay for it)?")

All that said, we do need the wild-eyed impractical "freaky" types to keep the rest of us from sinking into dull mediocrity.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at October 5, 2005 10:53 AM

Tom knows he is right and so do we. The world is changing and the ideas economy is already here. Add workable to the 'freaky ideas' and you have a hit. The tradgedy is that the big hairy gorillas with old economy muscle then have a product and a patent to attack. And they do. How many patents are written with all the best care in the world only to fall apart because the inventor had no way of predicting the precise outcome of the products life in the market and can therefore not protect every angle via a patent?
Perhaps the fear of being knocked off will make the devlopment wheel turn faster so we can stay ahead of the pirates and gorillas. It just is a little less lucrative with the first product and tougher on the budget with new product development.

Posted by Nigel Dorward at October 5, 2005 7:25 PM

Mary, nice thought about the patent being the idea, but the kicker being being able to turn that idea into a product.

I'm remembering the story this week about the Nobel awarded to the men who wrote up the math behind the laser beam...published more than 40 years ago. The idea literally defined a laser beam but it took many years to take the idea and make it real.

I'm curious about how this all affects copyrights. Remember cool friend Rolf Jensen? His core philosophy is that the future belongs to people who tell the best stories, a la have the best ideas.

The ad industry would love to see this happen further. Right now ad agencies are paid for an hour of time. Some times that hour creates a dud, sometimes that hour creates the Marlboro man. The philosophical question is, is the hour of time spent creating the Marlboro man worth the same as the hour spent creating the dud?

If only I had gone to law school to study intellectual property...

Posted by Paul Davidson at October 6, 2005 12:28 AM

The thing about the true sharing Web 2.0 is its impact on Web 1.0 business process, there is not respect for intellectual property in the new sharing lands. It will and is removing big piles of money from the movie and music business. I support sharing and creativity, but this will massively devalue content creation under present profit return scheme in place now.

If you have a car crash on the highway and you add three Lexus to the mix, you can expect three insurance companies, looking to place the blame. In insurance claims, the chain of responsibility always goes deeper that anyone imagined.

Lets fix the blame on someone who can pay for it, and fix it, and who enables the transmission of content. Remember even with you being the one responsible for the accident, the state or city get part of the responsible for having the road to move on.

So I am going to put up two or three movers of web content, who move it in their proprietary machines, and do the actual transmission. Lets try to have the Internet Service Providers the ISP's, the router networks providers also the makers of routers, and the server makers, hold some blame for the transmission.

This is only putting up an idea to fix the problem. They can give legitimate certification, to every thing moving on the web, and if it ain't got it, then add tax on the transmitter to remove it, simple plan. Easy fix, if they try it, it will ensure content it profit.

Posted by Mike Reardon at October 6, 2005 2:41 AM

Or, maybe there are so many more patent applications these days because there are so many more inventions. As for patent law, you should go for it Paul. Companies are constantly suing each other over supposed patent infringements. You wouldn't even have to go to court most of the time because they usually settle. It's easier and cheaper for all concerned that way. It's pretty much a scam that everybody gets involved with. It's no wonder most of our companies are dull, gray, boring, and lack innovation. All the energy is going down these destructive roads that don't create anything.

And, really, ideas are a dime-a-dozen. Mary is correct. It's what comes after the big idea that adds value to it.

Posted by Mike at October 6, 2005 6:35 AM

Maybe it's the question that's wrong. Perhaps we should be asking, "Can you build a business around ideas?" As long as you can operationalise the idea in some way that generates profits, the answer has to be, "Yes."

Maybe pharmaceuticals offers a glimpse of the future. Loads of smaller firms doing the creative, scientific work developing ideas - and then they sell the "idea" on to the big boys with their manufacturing and distribution muscle to bring it to market.

Posted by Mark JF at October 6, 2005 1:36 PM

This discussion brings to mind the old Sid Caesar bit, "The guy who came up with the first wheel was an idiot. The guy who came up with the other three was a genius."

Thanks to open source, "everything is free on the Internet" thinking of many young (and old) turks - the very concept of IP and protection thereof is radically changing - IP law is defintely going to get very interesting.

And, of course, patents and copyrights are ultimately useless if one can't afford to hire attorneys when a big bully with dollars just decides to take the IP. Seen it happen way too often.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at October 6, 2005 2:26 PM

Totally agree with Mike. Many companies hang onto patents that they have no intention of using in a product because they can use it in legal situations.

Many companies won't even sue for an infringment they keep it in their back pocket. When a competitor tries to sue for some other reason they hold the patent up and threaten.

What waste of good ideas!

I do wonder if the patent applications these days are as rigorous on the "orginal" bit. The lawyers are much mor savvy about how to scrape a crap idea past the assessmsnt.

The question is not how many patents but how New and ORIGINAL ideas are really being generated?

Posted by PaulH at October 7, 2005 7:27 AM

Consumers can give ideas to corporation.
But corporations need work in an open source way then.
Here is ONE idea for Apple.

“iPod dance” – A nonstop music solution with a perpetual battery

Posted by Stefan Engeseth at October 7, 2005 8:52 AM

Mary et al.: Sure a patent is not a product is not a business. But a patent is a pretty decent surrogate for products, if not businesses. And more is more or less better. One slide I use from Juan Enrique's As the Future Catches You surely caught the attention of my audiences in Chile & Brazil & Argentina. In 1985, for instance, Argentina registered 12 patents in the U.S.; in 1998 the number was 46. The Koreans scored 50 U.S. patents in '85, and that # had grown to 3,362 by '98! (There's more than a little story there.) Once more I also commend everyone's attention to The PayPal Wars ... my clear winner as BizBook of the year. PayPal got its quiet and effective start by offering services to eBay users; when PayPal began to make a difference, all hell broke loose from eBay lawyers to bank lobbyists trying to get PayPal regulated into oblivion. It's as American as apple pie, and flaws and all I like it. You make your beachhead unopposed and unseen, and then success vaults you into the middle of the Big Boys' fray. And, duh, of course if we'd been smart we'd all have gotten JDs in intellectual property law--this is, after all, America!

Posted by tom peters at October 9, 2005 9:08 AM

Love this discussion...I recently left Citibank. i was the Director of user experienc ther and ran an awesome team of creative. The challange we had was partnering with the finance team to develop the right business model for the ideas. The finance guys had a hard time moving beyond how they usually develop ROI calculations to relooking at the ways they forcast for true business changing ideas. They had problems looking beyond th eusual models and developing deeper ways to look at shifting business revenue streams.

The work that needs to be done is to get the money guys in a new mindset. Get them to shift how they look at the business and progress can be made making the ideas come to life.

Posted by Florence Haridan at October 12, 2005 9:58 PM