Being Pissed Off Doesn't Mean You Have A Legal Claim
from the repeat-this-over-and-over-again dept
One of the common themes we see over and over again is people filing lawsuits just because they’re upset about something (to a lesser extent, this also applies to DMCA takedowns). We just wrote about Judge Posner’s shredding of Apple’s patent litigation strategy, noting that just because you’re “really annoyed,” it doesn’t mean you get to sue. Famed venture capitalist Fred Wilson has riffed on this idea, talking about how he loves investing in innovators rather than copycats, and he feels a visceral emotional anger when he sees an innovator copied, but that’s no reason for a lawsuit:
I have often felt that “palpable sense of injustice” when our firm is an investor in the innovator and a copycat competitor shows up. But there is a difference between being pissed and having a legal claim.
Indeed, as we’ve written before, we recognize the emotional response that comes about when this happens. It’s natural to get angry when someone copies you. But is it a reason to go legal? That’s much more difficult to justify. In fact, as Wilson notes, often someone copying you can be a good thing:
Knockoffs create competition for the innovator and keep them honest. And they provide an opportunity for those that cannot, for some reason, work with the innovator.
And, as he notes, if the original company is a true innovator, they’ll keep innovating and stay ahead of the competition anyway:
If the innovator keeps innovating, as Apple and [YCombinator] have, they will do fine and will enjoy the spoils that come from creating the category and leading it.
And that’s really the key in all of this. Competition is not a static snapshot. Time doesn’t stand still. Innovation is an ongoing process. Copycats are often a bit behind the leader, but as long as the leader truly understands its market, it’s in a much better position to continue innovating and leading. The copycats act as incentive to increase that innovation, and that seems like a pretty good thing, if we believe that greater innovation is a good thing. People have a natural reaction where they think that “copying” is bad — but if you look at the overall impact, and the fact that it results in greater innovation from the leader as well, it turns out the opposite is true.
Filed Under: copying, dmca, fred wilson, richard posner
Companies: apple
Comments on “Being Pissed Off Doesn't Mean You Have A Legal Claim”
Sometimes the “rip-offs” are better than the one that spawned them.
I’d hate to be stuck with only one option.
Re: Re:
I’d hate to be stuck with only one option.
Only one option = NO option. I think you meant “with no options”.
Re: Re: Re:
Is that how it’s said? Then no options it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC was wrong in correcting you. Only one option = No choice of options, not no option. Abstaining is still an option.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice
But Apple, and other tech companies, are innovating new ways to sue one another. Isn’t this a good thing? =P
what a shame that the courts dont realise the same thing about the entertainment industries and their attitude towards file sharing. if they could be educated as to the benefits and took notice of them instead of expecting the world to stop sharing just because they get the ache over it, what a more pleasant place we would all be living in. it would make a nice change for those industries to listen to others instead of keep forcing their outdated attitude all the time.
But ... but ... innovation is evil!
It means David Lowery doesn’t get his pony!
Re: But ... but ... innovation is evil!
He could get an eDonkey though.
Re: Re: But ... but ... innovation is evil!
He doesn’t need it. He’s already shown himself to be an ass.
Apple innovation...
If the innovator keeps innovating, as Apple and [YCombinator] have, they will do fine
Which explains the lawsuits. I haven’t seen a whole lot of innovation from Apple the last couple years.
Re: Apple innovation...
I guess that would explain Apple patenting a shape. Hmmmmm… I think I’ll patent… oblong!
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apple-patents-the-macbook-airs-wedge-design-bad-news-for-ultrabook-makers/
palpable sense of injustice
Am I the only one that read that as a “Palpatine sense of injustice”?
Now that’s injustice.
I'm angry
[sarcasm]
I’m angry at TechDirt for pointing this inconvenient fact out, so I’m going to slap TechDirt with a DMCA takedown!
[/sarcasm]
Re: I'm angry
I’m angry at you for being angry, Imma sue you for $234,764,633,636,252,636,262
really
Until patent law is completely overhauled it will cause problems for any manufacturer and prevent innovation. But there are those in the market that survive from doing nothing but claiming patents have been infringed. Only those that use a patent should be allowed a limited use of that patent to generate funds. Patents should not be transferable and should only be valid for 2-3 years.
I've been damaged
I’m pissed off that someone dares to say that being pissed off doesn’t give me cause to sue. My lawyer will contact you soon.
as Eddie implied I’m blown away that a person able to profit $7977 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site http://thinfi.com/7py
Re: Re:
If I wasn’t text browsing I’d so flag you.
Then I’d sue
Copycats
When Edison first started inventing, he was quickly seen as someone who “had it right”, and copycats came out of the walls. He was not very wealthy, and depended on funding from his inventions to proceed onward.
But in Mr. Wilson’s opinion, Edison should have spent his scarce funds to invent, had the result taken by a better funded copycat, used more of his scarce funds to invent, had his invention taken … so when his scarce funds ran out (all output, little or no input), what would he do? AND, would we be better off in a world with no electric lights?
Re: Copycats
Edison was a litigious asshole, anything trying to paint him as a victim is rather darned false.
foteliki samochodowe
hie hie hie