Innovators vs Copiers
@ktmel passed me and @nicola_smith22 this article that talks about the role of innovators vs. copiers in today’s world. Specifically, it says:
What’s happening is that we might, in fact, be at a time in our history where we’re being domesticated by these great big societal things, such as Facebook and the Internet. We’re being domesticated by them, because fewer and fewer and fewer of us have to be innovators to get by. And so, in the cold calculus of evolution by natural selection, at no greater time in history than ever before, copiers are probably doing better than innovators. Because innovation is extraordinarily hard.
I question the very premise of the argument, that “copiers” cannot also be innovators.
Steve Jobs didn’t invent the phone. But he made it better. He also didn’t invent the mp3 player. Or the tablet. Was he not innovative?
The Google guys didn’t invent the search engine. To my knowledge, Jeff Bezos didn’t invent anything.
I guess they’re just a bunch of copiers. Perhaps we’ve been giving them too much credit?
How could one seriously argue that the only way to be innovative is invent something that the world has never seen?
And “fewer of us have to be innovators to get by”, what does that mean? Like the average person twenty years ago had to be innovative to “get by”? I highly doubt that was the case.
Innovators change the world. They buck the trends, they look at things differently, and yes, sometimes they take old, stale experiences or products and they make them better. To suggest that they aren’t innovative when doing that is insane.
Innovation :)
What about aggregators? Those who curate others’s original content cannot be considered innovators, but certainly can be recognized for their good taste. As a long time DJ, I can tell you that while I did not create the music I play on my show (Tuesday nights 7-10 pm EST – https://www.GumboShow.com), I do select the best of the best, and therefore add value for my listeners.
[…] For more information on the article this information was take from, click here: https://www.jeffhilimire.com/2011/12/innovators-vs-copiers/ […]
I do like the phrase, “domesticated by them” in which it can be easier than ever to take the ideas of others and reproduce them (without adding an innovative edge or re-imagining something in a different light), and that sort of copying is a “domesticated” opposite to innovation. But, I agree that the greatest “innovations” build on something great that already existed and are not usually built from scratch. Great post (and article, Katie!).
Steve Jobs also stole the quote Good Artist Create – Great Artists Steal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU&list=FLPWd-gnbrhQlH37HzUC_A7g&index=3&feature=plpp_video
Um, shameless plug, Joe? ;)
I think the “mashup” whether as a sequence and/or blend is the ultimate form of innovation…however this is coming from a DJ (https://facebook.com/djbadvlad, available for private bookings)
I think of it this way: There’s virtually nothing “unique” that exists today…let’s call this “the picture”…so the only way to be creative is to “frame” what we already have.
What do you think?
–my two cents
There is a war on innovation right now. The US Patent system is being taken apart, one piece of legislation at a time. Last year, Congress passed a bill ironically entitled “America Invents” which limits the rights of independent inventors to their inventions and insulates some companies, including most large banks, from being accused of patent infringement by small patent holders. There is other legislation pending that would make exerting patent rights legal only if the patent holder is him/herself actually using the patent. While on the surface this might seem simple, it is pretty hard for someone who invents a new electrical generation methodology to build a multibillion dollar plant without the capital and resources of a large company. This same company has no incentive to fund the little guy since, by preventing him from being able to use his invention they would then be able to take the invention and exploit it without royalty.
Not good.
Unfortunately, patent holders are getting a bad rap because of two things – more patents being issued than ever before, with the pace of technical innovation far outstripping the patent office’s ability to review prior art and validate all claims and the development of companies whose sole purpose is to acquire and enforce patent rights for profitable gain. The latter, sometimes called “patent trolls” are characterized as being bad actors, but from another perspective they are providing liquidity to the small inventor and are creating other sources of wealth.
Woah, insightful analysis DR on the current state of the US Patent system.
I sure hope this type of legislation does not continue. Crushing the ability of “the little guy” to invent and create is in some ways going to crush what makes this country so great.
I’m not sure about other industries, but patent trolls are HORRIBLE for the software industry.
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/02/22/Patent-Fail
Basically, the US Patent office has no clue what to actually patent. They even gave out a patent for toast a few years back.
The patent system, at least in regards to software, needs to be dismantled.
You will rarely find a software creator that is for the patent system…
Software cannot be patented per se. Actual code is protected under copyright law. The challenge is that modifying code as a workaround can be as simple as changing syntax or nomenclature, while the resulting software is virtually identical.
When “business method” patents began to be allowed in the 90s, part of the reason for this was to provide protection to software designers who created truly novel applications but had previously lacked the protection from copycats who were all to eager to jump on a good thing. (By example, look at the fate of VisiCalc, the original spreadsheet program. Lotus built its own spreadsheet functionality based almost entirely on VisiCalc and stole the category from the innovator. This made me a lot less sympathetic when the same thing happened to them, via MSFT, a few years later.) Unfortunately, “business methods” are by nature less precise and remain the source of the controversy over intellectual property protection.
The world needs a better way, but eliminating the awkward protections of the patent system cannot be the answer. I cannot imagine that a software creator would like a world in which his or her invention becomes public domain the moment it is published.
Do you have a suggestion for a better approach, Ricardo?