The problem with corporate behemoths is that they suffer from horrific “Not Invented Here” syndromes – not that they cannot move quickly. If they have a huge emotional investment, then it’s going to be a hard ship to turn.

Apple, for example, is a large company. Yet they turned their failed “iMovie revolution” into a successful “iTunes revolution” after a serious mis-step very quickly and re-aligned the company around it.

Prime example – speed of iPhone killers.

The need for protection from the big boys is real as large companies (or equally, people with large amounts of money behind them) can move very quickly when they need to.

I know of someone who managed to secure a patent for “a device which reports ECG from a patient wirelessly” – he had NO IDEA *how* to do this (it was granted many many years ago), and is in fact preventing the inventors of devices from doing so. (There is a lengthy legal battle on-going here)

The problem with software patents, is companies with such huge financial clout do things like “patenting” ‘the space bar’, and charging royalties to everyone else. Imagine if Apple had been able to patent the “look and feel” – computing would be in the dark ages still.

Copyright was developed to protect authors, but has been prodded and poked by big institutions to suit their needs. In the case of music, it is absolutely absurd to have copyright extended, there is a limited amount of music which can be produced (and actually tuneful) and we are surprisingly close to this limit. Fergal, and Sir Cliff are barking up the wrong tree. They are essentially arguing that, despite buying their records and paying royalties through radio stations, they are still entitled to even more money, poor show.

I simply don’t agree that patents should be allowed. If you are an inventor, and invent something good and unique, the chances are that even a big company will lag behind in a reproduction of it. The argument that they can produce a knock-off equivalent of your unique idea is absurd – especially having worked for large organisations, to even upgrade your web browser can take 3 years, so “moving quickly” on a copy-cat is just a no-no.

Patents and copyright, sadly have morphed into protection for the big boys.

Absurdly, if I ever had an idea, I would strive to protect it – have to play by the existing rules and not my ideals you see.

Have you read “How to Get Rich” by Felix Dennis?

>>>Having a great idea is simply not enough. The eventual goal is vastly more important than any idea. It is how ideas are implemented that counts in the long run.

>>Good ideas are like Nike sports shoes. They may facilitate an athlete who possesses them, but on their own they are nothing but an overpriced pair of sneakers. Specially adapted sneakers may be a good idea. But the goal is still to win, and sports shoes don’t win. Athletes do.

>>And yet I have lost count of the number of men and women who have approached me with their “great idea,” as if this, in and of itself, was some passport to instant wealth. The idea is not a passport. At most, it is the means of obtaining one.

From chapter 5: The Fallacy of the Great Idea

I recommend the book, despite the title that makes it seem like snake oil. It’s not.

But they don’t mean anything without proper planning and execution.

Like you, I’ve found sharing of ideas to actually foster BETTER execution via partnerships which add to the talent pool of an idea – resources I alone would lack.

This idea is core behind the monthly NI Music Industry Meetups (modeled to some degree on Open Coffee). Execution of an idea, not the protection of that idea, is what should draw 100% focus of a new business, whatever the industry.

Thanks for the reminder…

Implementation, more precisely, very, very fast implementation is king. You can explain to me (your secrets) details of DPI, associated memory search, predictive reputations, etc. etc. etc. but the concept, and V1 implementation is mostly just a prototype for evaluating the “real” requirements.

So don’t use “first mover advantage” in a business plan. First movers are usually roadkill.

NDA’s.

Cute little docs. Never get signed over here. Can’t recall the last time one was enforceable.

Patents. Good for the big guys like Cisco and IBM. Kind of like trading pawns in a cut-and-slash game of chess, I’d enjoy hearing a logical case for way to bother, apart from making money for patent attorneys or checking a box on some due diligence boiler plate.

So Matt. Don’t worry about secrecy. Take ideas and move very, very fast. That’s all the “barriers to entry” you’ll need, or get!!

In 500 BC, the Greeks permitted a patent to be secured for a year.
In 1421, patents were secured for three years.
In 1790, the USA secured patents for 14 years.
Currently the length of a patent is 20 years under US law.

The case for patents is sound in that it permits an inventor, a visionary, to earn royalties and live off them for a period while inventing more great things. The issue with software patents is twofold. One, the realm of human imagination with software is wide open and patents can lock that down prematurely and Two, the software market is so changeable and so commercially driven that a 20 year patent is tantamount to being worthless.

The problem with patents as a whole is that they should have a compulsory requirement to display a actual implementation.

@Mike – copyright is different and wrongly so in my opinion. Copyright in the US is lifetime of the author plus 50 years, in the UK it’s lifetime + 70. This enables a successful author’s family to live for two generations on his work. That’s not the intention of the copyright – which, like a patent, was established to permit an author or other content creator to live off the fruits of his labour while creating more!

It is this last part we have lost.

Sometimes an idea is early. And sometimes an idea is simply immortal.