It seems that with each new software release, competing products get closer and closer together. One company's competitive advantage is quickly copied and released by rival companies. This isn't a new trend; in fact, imitation is a cornerstone of "innovation" in the digital age. Let's start from the original digital knock-off, the graphical user interface. Originally pioneered by the Mac in 1984, it replace the DOS command-line systems with a more user friendly interface controlled by a mouse. This game changing idea was quickly copied, titled "Windows" and put on the market by Microsoft in 1985.
From the beginning, people viewed technological intellectual property as different from tangible property. Normally a firm could patent a product and the relatively slow change in their market would allow competitors to sell a competing differentiated product. In the fiercely competitive technology markets, a product without all the bells and whistles of the competition will fall behind. Therefore, large numbers of people have justified relaxing intellectual property restrictions.
Imagine how the patent trial would go if a businessman started selling knock-offs of patented pharmaceuticals and tried to use excuses common to IT. Sure, the knock-offs came after the original, were inspired by it, accomplish fundamentally the same thing, but are functionally different because of this insignificant change. Assuming that dispute got to trial (it never would), it would be a landslide victory for the pharmaceutical industry.
Yet today, it's common to see patented products that are indistinguishable from one another. Take the Nook and the Kindle, they're essentially the same product. Look at the current generation game systems, they all now have motion controlled sensors. TiVo got pushed out of the market because cable companies were able to provide a "non-patent violating" substitute in their cable box DVRs.
It seems like in technology fields today, patents are filed not to stop competitors from copying, but to slow them down. If they have to stop and figure out how to make the product "functionally different" the inventor might get an extra month of exclusive use. As a result, patents today are ridiculous. They either attempt to obscure the details of a product or they make the patent so broad it could be used to describe most technologies on the market.
I don't think there's much we can do about it, other than have some personal integrity. I just find it interesting to contrast Intellectual Property in IT with Intellectual Property in other fields.
What does this have to do with the mac perspective? Everything. Companies no longer must one-up each other with invention and innovation. There is little profit in creating the game changing software, and quite a bit of risk in trying. It may seem like this kind of environment is good for consumers because it helps keep prices in check, but this is not the case. We are setting ourselves up for an era of stagnation, trade secrets, and unspectacular progress. In this case, competition is making the consumer lose.
What does this have to do with the mac perspective? Everything. Companies no longer must one-up each other with invention and innovation. There is little profit in creating the game changing software, and quite a bit of risk in trying. It may seem like this kind of environment is good for consumers because it helps keep prices in check, but this is not the case. We are setting ourselves up for an era of stagnation, trade secrets, and unspectacular progress. In this case, competition is making the consumer lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment