As noted yesterday, there is a correlation between patents and failure. A key to a patent is to be the inventor (although this was recently muddied by the new patent laws.) Suffering under the delusion that there may be some correlation between a patent and success, people cripple their hearts and minds and creativity in pursuit of what empirically truly fails. Worse yet, they exercise their creativity subject to a violence-based system, which has a soul-corroding effect that is not noticed among those suffering form this self-inflicted wound.
Yet they go on.
Secrecy is key to a patent, and so we have non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements and so on, a topic that Bodrin and Levine cover well in their book. Where courts enforce such agreements, as on the East Coast, creativity dies. Where courts tend not to enforce such agreements, as on the West Coast, creativity flourishes. This is why in spite of IBM, Wang, Digital Equipment all being East Coast, the computer revolution took place on the West Coast, mostly because of ignorant East Coast judges, and the childish executives who turn every business problem into a legal problem.
Secrecy is death in business.
Comes an article on the infamous Segway, a product that was going to change the world, we were all told. It didn't. It was a scooter with wheels in a new configuration. That's it. Didn't work in the rain so good. But dozens of people, years of development, millions of dollars, massive secrecy. And poof. Just like about 6, 999,101 of the 7,000,000 products for which patents were issued since 1789 in USA. People don't learn because they want to believe they too can be successful with a monopoly backed by state violence. They may not actually articulate it, but one does have to assent to the misanthropic premise of "intellectual property rights" to become corrupted, and once that happens, in for a dime, in for a dollar.
The article promises four reasons Segway failed, but for the life of me, I can find only three in the article: secrecy, hype and failure to design to market. Secrecy and failure to design to market are two sides of the same coin. By hyping a secret idea that served no customers, as usual, the results were a disaster. The article does not make the correct point: Open, incremental, continuous customer-centric R&D is the path to success.
Segway was sold to an English millionaire, who had high hopes of turning it into a military vehicle, going for the big bucks, the war bucks. He was trying out a new rugged version on his estate when he scooted over a cliff and died in the fall. I am not making this up.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Yet they go on.
Secrecy is key to a patent, and so we have non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements and so on, a topic that Bodrin and Levine cover well in their book. Where courts enforce such agreements, as on the East Coast, creativity dies. Where courts tend not to enforce such agreements, as on the West Coast, creativity flourishes. This is why in spite of IBM, Wang, Digital Equipment all being East Coast, the computer revolution took place on the West Coast, mostly because of ignorant East Coast judges, and the childish executives who turn every business problem into a legal problem.
Secrecy is death in business.
Comes an article on the infamous Segway, a product that was going to change the world, we were all told. It didn't. It was a scooter with wheels in a new configuration. That's it. Didn't work in the rain so good. But dozens of people, years of development, millions of dollars, massive secrecy. And poof. Just like about 6, 999,101 of the 7,000,000 products for which patents were issued since 1789 in USA. People don't learn because they want to believe they too can be successful with a monopoly backed by state violence. They may not actually articulate it, but one does have to assent to the misanthropic premise of "intellectual property rights" to become corrupted, and once that happens, in for a dime, in for a dollar.
The article promises four reasons Segway failed, but for the life of me, I can find only three in the article: secrecy, hype and failure to design to market. Secrecy and failure to design to market are two sides of the same coin. By hyping a secret idea that served no customers, as usual, the results were a disaster. The article does not make the correct point: Open, incremental, continuous customer-centric R&D is the path to success.
Segway was sold to an English millionaire, who had high hopes of turning it into a military vehicle, going for the big bucks, the war bucks. He was trying out a new rugged version on his estate when he scooted over a cliff and died in the fall. I am not making this up.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment