It seems 90% of the new generation in intellectuall property laws today are of controlled approach and this may be the reasons of high unsatisfied results that discourage innovation....it all depends ...
Not all operators see the same window....vision ....strength...
They do have their own individual weaknesses....but for sure those that stick to the challenge have overcome their threats...for only those who could gaze the great opportunities ahead of them stay to promote innovation , but that is the greatest barrier facing successful operators today....so less a scale.....but looking at the international global clash today...
They have no choice but to sweat and swim positively with confidence.
Personally, I believe IP laws encourage innovation . . . because you have to reverse engineer a competitive offering in such a way as to change the game in the way that you (yourself) are going to create a challenger. Instead of building a slightly better mousetrap, you have to find a way to innovate in such a way as to avoid IP violations, which as many will attest, is just plain tougher than introducing a 'me-too' product for a lower price (i.e. a non-innovative commodity).
Great managers coordinate resources and provide opportunities for his/her staff. Fundamentally these are two different roles which provide value to the company in different ways.
Intellectual property laws help promote innovation by protecting the creative ideas of innovative people.
Innovation can only exist where people have a sense of ownership over their ideas. Intellectual property rights help establish when one has an ownership right in a wigit.
Promote, in my opinion. Consider pharmaceutical companies. They receive property rights on newly developed drugs for a certain amount of years to pay for research costs and reward discovery. If generic brands could hit the market a month after the initial release of the drug, who the heck would waste the money to innovate new drugs? I believe the lack of property laws would hinder innovation.
Depending on what it is makes the diffeance w/IP. Should one consider the gene makeup of your cancer IP... or the application/approach applied to your cancer gene tweeking. As it stands now if some company has a gene map of your cancer/unique gene(living in your body from birth) no one is permited to do research on that Ca gene unless they pay (usualy a very costly) IP fee to do research on tweeking that gene map in hope for a cure. Do You Realy Think That It Promotes Inovation Now?
I believe that at the moment, IP laws discourage innovation on a broad scale while encouraging it through narrow, finance- and connection-limited channels (such as investor and corporate support).
Looking at history, our nation progressed a great deal when individual inventors were able to walk into the Patent Office and engage the services of a patent clerk in helping them document their invention and file for a patent.
I believe that it was because this condition placed a keystone of technological entrepreneurship - rights to an invention - well within the ability of virtually any individual to afford. This was perfectly aligned with the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote Article 14 into our Constitution and thereby created official government support for a patent office to foster our individual ability to recognize problems and create solutions for the benefit of all.
However, due to the incredible number of patents (and seemingly even more patent attorneys), I believe that it is now extremely risky for most individuals to attempt to exercise IP rights.
The reason is that a patent for a useful, marketable invention instantly attracts a significant financial risk in the form of infringement suits by legitimate competitors or even outright parasites such as the "submarine" patent companies. Even if the potential reward is greater than the risk, it is still only potential until it is actually realized via the marketplace.
So unfortunately, I believe that at this time, most individuals choose not to risk their personal financial security in an attempt to secure rights to an innovation, regardless of how "big" it might become. Instead, they (and I include myself in this) attempt to establish enough of a business footing so as to be able to afford the risk before they (we?) "go public" with a patent filing for their innovations.
Also unfortunately, a key issue lies with this approach, and that is that it is not quantifiable- no one can count up the numbers of people who have failed to garner enough support to risk filing for a patent - or even just given up on their potential contribution when they became aware of the level of risk involved.
So while we have accurate numbers on the patents that have made positive contributions, I believe that we don't have any way of having accurate numbers on the negative side, and therefore we can't really make the kind of hard assessments which would point out if and where changes were needed.
Thanks for the chance to weigh in on this! Hope it wasn't too heavy :)
dEFINATELY ON THIS ONE ,the law offers the motivation and requisite protection to the innovator, it would be less profitable and of little interest to innovate what might become copied before profitering, the law is usually put in place to undo a mischief, IP is positive law
I'm still wrestling with the overall subject of intellectual property because of my own view of private property being sacrosanct, but I've definitely seen abuses of what can honestly be called "property."
An acquaintance of mine who owns a business just lost a huge court case dealing with intellectual property, and to just read the briefest of details is very discouraging to anyone hoping to see the kind of explosion of innovation that could really be possible.
Alternatively one could argue that competition is the mother of innovation, in that vien any law hindering competion appears to become anti-innovation, simplistic as this submission appears the discussion topic takes a new dimension i would be glad to receive some reactions to this dimension, thank you.
Ideally private property will be protected by a sound legal infrastructure. This encourages people to invest in their ideas, and put them to market.
If property is not protected, the work and subsequent property will not likely be produced.
Many get confused at this point of the topic because in their minds, they see a finished product and some grumpy entrepreneur simply refusing to bring it to market. But that's not the case.
Many ideas will never come any where near fruition without the promise of legal protection for all of their efforts.
Segueing to intellectual property however, the definition of property becomes more vague. Innovation is hampered by parasites and also-rans simply clogging up the patent office and court system with false claims to ideas that can't possibly be proprietary.
Apple and Microsoft might charge on ahead, but many young developers simply don't go there because they can't afford the legal battles.
I agree with the principle. People who create something should get recognition for it and protection for their creation.
Another perspective though is that several great ideas sit in patent files and very few get implemented successfully. The strike rate is relatively low. However it becomes a deterent for someone else with a similar idea - because a patent already exists and he/ she does not want to infringe. However what that means is that the world is denied a potentially high-impact solution. I am not aware of the technical details of the patent system, but there needs to be a timeframe condition to de-list an unimplemented idea. Does that already exist?
13 Total
March 26, 2008 at 10:01am by Angeline Batimala
It seems 90% of the new generation in intellectuall property laws today are of controlled approach and this may be the reasons of high unsatisfied results that discourage innovation....it all depends ...
Not all operators see the same window....vision ....strength...
They do have their own individual weaknesses....but for sure those that stick to the challenge have overcome their threats...for only those who could gaze the great opportunities ahead of them stay to promote innovation , but that is the greatest barrier facing successful operators today....so less a scale.....but looking at the international global clash today...
They have no choice but to sweat and swim positively with confidence.
Thank God for ....that!
March 26, 2008 at 12:46pm by Joshua Letourneau
Personally, I believe IP laws encourage innovation . . . because you have to reverse engineer a competitive offering in such a way as to change the game in the way that you (yourself) are going to create a challenger. Instead of building a slightly better mousetrap, you have to find a way to innovate in such a way as to avoid IP violations, which as many will attest, is just plain tougher than introducing a 'me-too' product for a lower price (i.e. a non-innovative commodity).
March 26, 2008 at 2:31pm by Todd Bryant
That's a BIG question, but generally I feel that people who create new things should be compensated. To what extent and for how long is up for debate.
March 26, 2008 at 2:38pm by Todd Bryant
Great managers coordinate resources and provide opportunities for his/her staff. Fundamentally these are two different roles which provide value to the company in different ways.
March 26, 2008 at 8:28pm by Robert Bishop
Intellectual property laws help promote innovation by protecting the creative ideas of innovative people.
Innovation can only exist where people have a sense of ownership over their ideas. Intellectual property rights help establish when one has an ownership right in a wigit.
March 26, 2008 at 10:42pm by Shawn Hadwiger
Promote, in my opinion. Consider pharmaceutical companies. They receive property rights on newly developed drugs for a certain amount of years to pay for research costs and reward discovery. If generic brands could hit the market a month after the initial release of the drug, who the heck would waste the money to innovate new drugs? I believe the lack of property laws would hinder innovation.
March 28, 2008 at 8:24pm by Ron Davis
Depending on what it is makes the diffeance w/IP. Should one consider the gene makeup of your cancer IP... or the application/approach applied to your cancer gene tweeking. As it stands now if some company has a gene map of your cancer/unique gene(living in your body from birth) no one is permited to do research on that Ca gene unless they pay (usualy a very costly) IP fee to do research on tweeking that gene map in hope for a cure. Do You Realy Think That It Promotes Inovation Now?
March 31, 2008 at 7:17pm by David Ainsburg
I believe that at the moment, IP laws discourage innovation on a broad scale while encouraging it through narrow, finance- and connection-limited channels (such as investor and corporate support).
Looking at history, our nation progressed a great deal when individual inventors were able to walk into the Patent Office and engage the services of a patent clerk in helping them document their invention and file for a patent.
I believe that it was because this condition placed a keystone of technological entrepreneurship - rights to an invention - well within the ability of virtually any individual to afford. This was perfectly aligned with the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote Article 14 into our Constitution and thereby created official government support for a patent office to foster our individual ability to recognize problems and create solutions for the benefit of all.
However, due to the incredible number of patents (and seemingly even more patent attorneys), I believe that it is now extremely risky for most individuals to attempt to exercise IP rights.
The reason is that a patent for a useful, marketable invention instantly attracts a significant financial risk in the form of infringement suits by legitimate competitors or even outright parasites such as the "submarine" patent companies. Even if the potential reward is greater than the risk, it is still only potential until it is actually realized via the marketplace.
So unfortunately, I believe that at this time, most individuals choose not to risk their personal financial security in an attempt to secure rights to an innovation, regardless of how "big" it might become. Instead, they (and I include myself in this) attempt to establish enough of a business footing so as to be able to afford the risk before they (we?) "go public" with a patent filing for their innovations.
Also unfortunately, a key issue lies with this approach, and that is that it is not quantifiable- no one can count up the numbers of people who have failed to garner enough support to risk filing for a patent - or even just given up on their potential contribution when they became aware of the level of risk involved.
So while we have accurate numbers on the patents that have made positive contributions, I believe that we don't have any way of having accurate numbers on the negative side, and therefore we can't really make the kind of hard assessments which would point out if and where changes were needed.
Thanks for the chance to weigh in on this! Hope it wasn't too heavy :)
April 11, 2008 at 5:41am by Charles Matovu
dEFINATELY ON THIS ONE ,the law offers the motivation and requisite protection to the innovator, it would be less profitable and of little interest to innovate what might become copied before profitering, the law is usually put in place to undo a mischief, IP is positive law
April 22, 2008 at 12:19am by Ray Gardner
I'm still wrestling with the overall subject of intellectual property because of my own view of private property being sacrosanct, but I've definitely seen abuses of what can honestly be called "property."
An acquaintance of mine who owns a business just lost a huge court case dealing with intellectual property, and to just read the briefest of details is very discouraging to anyone hoping to see the kind of explosion of innovation that could really be possible.
April 22, 2008 at 2:09am by Charles Matovu
Alternatively one could argue that competition is the mother of innovation, in that vien any law hindering competion appears to become anti-innovation, simplistic as this submission appears the discussion topic takes a new dimension i would be glad to receive some reactions to this dimension, thank you.
April 22, 2008 at 7:49pm by Ray Gardner
Ideally private property will be protected by a sound legal infrastructure. This encourages people to invest in their ideas, and put them to market.
If property is not protected, the work and subsequent property will not likely be produced.
Many get confused at this point of the topic because in their minds, they see a finished product and some grumpy entrepreneur simply refusing to bring it to market. But that's not the case.
Many ideas will never come any where near fruition without the promise of legal protection for all of their efforts.
Segueing to intellectual property however, the definition of property becomes more vague. Innovation is hampered by parasites and also-rans simply clogging up the patent office and court system with false claims to ideas that can't possibly be proprietary.
Apple and Microsoft might charge on ahead, but many young developers simply don't go there because they can't afford the legal battles.
April 26, 2008 at 3:58am by Parvathi Menon
I agree with the principle. People who create something should get recognition for it and protection for their creation.
Another perspective though is that several great ideas sit in patent files and very few get implemented successfully. The strike rate is relatively low. However it becomes a deterent for someone else with a similar idea - because a patent already exists and he/ she does not want to infringe. However what that means is that the world is denied a potentially high-impact solution. I am not aware of the technical details of the patent system, but there needs to be a timeframe condition to de-list an unimplemented idea. Does that already exist?