When last we visited our friends in Redmond, we wrote about how money can't buy innovation. Back in December, Carleen Hawn chronicled Microsoft's $6.8 billion in annual R&D spending--and how little of it is spent on breakthrough innovations. Of every dollar spent on R&D, said Microsoft co-CTO Craig Mundie in the piece, "probably something on the order of 90% is directly in line, or in service of, the existing business groups." Only one-tenth, he said, "is essentially [invested in] pure research or incubation [of new products]." Yesterday's New York Times has an interesting piece by Silicon Valley historian and author Randall Stross that adds to that argument, describing Bill Gates' efforts to produce 3000 patents each year. Stross argues for the end of software patents, which frequently mean minor enhancements like "System and Method for Creating a Note Related to a Phone Call," rather than large-scale, truly breakthrough innovations. Stross argues that getting rid of "software patents would give Microsoft another chance to repair its relationship with open-source users" and bring an end to "this short, unhappy blip in our patent system's time line." What do you think: Are small-scale innovations just as important to protect as quantum leaps?
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, innovation + creativity, Patents, Randall Stross, Microsoft Corporation, Research and Development, Company Activities and Information |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 4 Total
August 1, 2005 at 5:07pm by John Croddy
Small innovations are equally important as large ones. Often, you don't know what product will make you a lot of money.
August 2, 2005 at 2:43am by gg
When it comes to software, many countries allow software to be copyrighted, but not patented.
This means that while the actual code & design is protected (in most countries, for a period of about 60 years), and cannot be used without authorization, other parties are free to write their own, original code to reproduce the same feature.
This is an ideal solution, as code-producers get to protect thier code, but not to stifle all innovation in that area.
As for Microsoft, except for DOS, they'be always been followers rather than leaders (even the Windows-GUI interface was developed by Xerox PARC, and then Apple) and its worked for them.
They let others innovate, then move in with their deep pockets and take over when they see something successful.
August 2, 2005 at 1:27pm by roger fulton
It must be nice that somewhere in the world, someone or a group of people can open a shower and bathe un an un-ending flow of money.
lucky you.
August 3, 2005 at 2:50pm by John
gg, Stop!
If you have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, you don't, do not regurgitate what you read in the blogosphere as fact.
1. Microsoft bought the code for DOS from Seattle (Micro) Computer Products, and modified it.
2. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) developed the original graphical user interface. They did not develop the Microsoft Windows GUI.
3. What Microsoft is doing is lawful. Using the law for competitive advantage is not only OK, it is the right thing to do.
4. Whatever is done in other countries is fine for them. However, I don't see as much innovation coming from their copycat ideas. Heck, I don't see ANY innovation at all.
If Microsoft spends $680m USD on forward-thinking innovation yearly, that is still a lot of cash.
Upper management at MSFT has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to improve the business. If spending $6.12b USD on gradual improvements in current software systems is what improves the lot of shareholders, then do that.
Rather that than some esoteric research that will never bear fruit in this reality.
If the research brings in small, useful innovations, then, by all means, patent them.
Where are all these contrarians when Microsoft is sued for software patent infringement? Where?
If Microsoft can use its own patents as a club to stop patent hawks from suing, then all is well.
Furthermore, if this is history as seen by 'Silicon Valley historian' Randall Stross, I cringe at what history he is seeing, and writing about.
A waste of valuable trees.
To wit:
"That is not what the framers of the Constitution wanted." And you know this, how??? Did you channel the Constitutional Drafting Committee?
The EU rejected uniform software patent standards accross its territory. It did not reject software patents; all software patent legislation is individual countries are still valid. Sheeez!
I'm not a historian or journalist, but I read everywhere that journalists always check their facts. That must not apply to Silicon Valley historians.
The Facts.
Just The Facts!