A common belief is that no innovation would occur without patents because big companies will just copy the technology and destroy the new guy. The author is claiming this isn’t true and that real innovation nearly always goes unnoticed. Disruptive innovations threaten standing cash cows, and large companies choose to ignore them as to not undermine their current revenue. Until it’s too late, that is.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why Big Companies Almost Never Notice Disruptive Innovation
- Thread starter John_Keck
- Start date
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
While I agree big companies do get complacent and lose sight of how innovation got them where they are,I think the inference that patents don't make a difference is incorrect. Big companies don't just copy the technology and destroy the new guy because of patents,and sometimes even that doesn't stop them from trying.
Patents have been turned into tools to protect the big guys.
How many patent infringement case have we read from this very site that listed Sony, Apple, Microsoft, and others as the offenders? And what happens?
It lasts years to settle the case, meanwhile the offenders are making bank off of the stolen tech. They lose the case in the end and pay out an amount that's just a portion of what the technology gained them.
On the flipside, how fast do smaller companies and individuals get shut down as soon as Apple, Microsoft, or Sony learn about them using something that may be based off their patents?
But as for the article, I understand the article and it seems to reflect back on the American capitalist system in general, which has put America in the situation it currently is. The CEOs, like the stock holders or the bank execs, love to just milk the short term profits without caring for the longer term. Because, similar to the patent situation, by the time the long-term comes, the CEOs are who-have-you have made their millions and quit, leaving the rest to pick up their mess.
And really, that's more of a morality thing, not a legality (patents and disruptive techs) thing.
How many patent infringement case have we read from this very site that listed Sony, Apple, Microsoft, and others as the offenders? And what happens?
It lasts years to settle the case, meanwhile the offenders are making bank off of the stolen tech. They lose the case in the end and pay out an amount that's just a portion of what the technology gained them.
On the flipside, how fast do smaller companies and individuals get shut down as soon as Apple, Microsoft, or Sony learn about them using something that may be based off their patents?
But as for the article, I understand the article and it seems to reflect back on the American capitalist system in general, which has put America in the situation it currently is. The CEOs, like the stock holders or the bank execs, love to just milk the short term profits without caring for the longer term. Because, similar to the patent situation, by the time the long-term comes, the CEOs are who-have-you have made their millions and quit, leaving the rest to pick up their mess.
And really, that's more of a morality thing, not a legality (patents and disruptive techs) thing.
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
Patent reform is definitely needed. Its being used in the opposite way from what was intended. It is now used to muscle little guys instead of protect them.
This. Amongst a few other very important reasons that are close to my heart...I've really become focused on the Pirate Party of Canada as the folks I'll be voting for in the coming years...and may even go so far as to become a card-carrying member.
Heck...even my own parents are looking at the same.(Which really surprises me, hence the mention.)
MATRIXSHARK
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 830
A patent provides you with no protection.
It merely grants you the right to begin the fight to stop infringers and THEN to begin to recoup any losses incurred.
Usually someone (the little guy) runs out of stamina long before any losses are recovered... oh, and then those losses are determined to be (typically) whatever the fair lisencing royalty (allowing for the infinger to have run a profitable busines model) hypothetically would have been from the begining.
It sounds like even if/when the infringers lose MOST of the time (they don't though).. they still win in the long run.
It's easy to see the problem. Feel free to offer the solution.
It merely grants you the right to begin the fight to stop infringers and THEN to begin to recoup any losses incurred.
Usually someone (the little guy) runs out of stamina long before any losses are recovered... oh, and then those losses are determined to be (typically) whatever the fair lisencing royalty (allowing for the infinger to have run a profitable busines model) hypothetically would have been from the begining.
It sounds like even if/when the infringers lose MOST of the time (they don't though).. they still win in the long run.
It's easy to see the problem. Feel free to offer the solution.
MATRIXSHARK
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 830
you talking about chicks?
fiercedeity
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 24
the only thing that keeps innovation going is profit
sad but true
Or lack of profit. If a company is making bank, they have no incentive to innovate. And they don't. We see that all the time in real life. It's only when profits start to drop that they start to innovate. See record labels, newspapers, or just about any dying company. They didn't do a single innovative thing in the last 40+ years. But now we see they [weakly] trying to experiment because there profits are shrinking.