Ideas Are Easy... Execution Is Difficult

from the so-why-do-we-protect-the-ideas? dept

It's an ongoing theme around here, but ideas are everywhere. The real trick to making something great often has extremely little to do with the idea, and much more to do with the execution. That's where the real innovation occurs -- in taking an idea and trying to figure out how to make it useful. It's that process that's important, much more than the original idea. As nearly anyone who has brought a product from conception to market will tell you, what eventually succeeds in the market is almost always radically different than the original "idea." That's part of the reason why patents are so often harmful to innovation. The patent is for that core idea, which is rarely the key in making something successful. But by limiting who can innovate off of the idea (or just by making it much more expensive) you're limiting that process of innovation.

Some people disagree with this, but the failure of Cambrian House, once again seems to demonstrate the vast gap between ideas and execution. Cambrian House was a well-hyped company that tried to "crowdsource" new companies and products. I've paid attention to them for a while, since their business model had some similarities to what we do with the Techdirt Insight Community. However, as the founder of Cambrian House admitted in explaining the company's changing plans, it wasn't difficult to get people to come up with all sorts of interesting and exciting ideas -- but where the company failed was in getting anyone to actually execute on any of those ideas. Ideas are a starting point -- but it's high time that we stopped worshipping the idea, and started recognizing how much more important execution is in driving innovation.

Filed Under: execution, ideas, innovation
Companies: cambrian house

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    mjr1007, 16 May 2008 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a bald faced fact.

    mjr1007 wrote:
    I get this a lot, the greater the risk the greater the reward. It only makes sense if you want to encourage adrenaline junkies, it has nothing to do with promoting progress in the useful arts and sciences. If you would like to encourage risk taking behavior then try getting a constitutional amendment, at least in the US, which states “in order to promote risk taking ...”. Put in that light it sounds kind of silly doesn't it. Which is why I told Mikebob he should start of each of these post with that clause. It might eliminate some of the red herrings.

    Nasch replied:
    His point is that something that has little or no risk (coming up with ideas) doesn't need to be encouraged or protected - people are going to do that no matter what. The question is whether we need to protect risky ventures in order to ensure progress. And keep in mind that patents are not supposed to be about making sure inventors get paid. They're supposed to encourage progress for the whole society.

    mjr1007 replied:
    People will come up with ideas so let's not worry about it. Ideas are not progress in science. This is the all birds are not cardinals problem. While all progress comes form ideas, not all ideas are progress. There are lots of bad ideas which will never lead to progress. A remote control for a sissy electric start motorcycle is not progress. Yes people will come up with all sorts of brain dead ideas, the patent system should not protect that. Put progress, really progress is quite rare.

    Take the Intel example that I've been flogging. If good ideas about ILP were so very easy, why did Intel need to steal someone else's? Why not just invent something else just as good or even better?

    Why has ILP stalled at less then 10 instructions per clock cycle. This stuff is really easy right. People can do this stuff in their sleep. The score boarding required to even get to where we are today is incredibly difficult and complex. To think this just happens, can only be said with a straight face, by someone who isn't doing it.

    If this stuff is so easy why are companies getting out of Basic Research. Why, because it's hard and expensive.

    Your opinions just don't jive with the facts.

    My opinion is even the risky stuff needs little or no protection. If there's a market for something, somebody is going to take the risk to try to bring a product to that market. If there is no market for it, then a patent would not serve any purpose anyway*. First mover advantage is known to be quite substantial in general - I think patent protection should be very short, if it needs to exist at all.

    * this doesn't mean we don't need that thing, whatever it is, only that a patent is not the way to encourage it

    mjr1007 replied:
    We may actually agree here. Patents are not the way to get new products, they are the way to promote progress in science. Two similar but not identical concepts. All of your comments about companies producing products are irrelevant for the patent system.

    As it turns out though with compulsory licensing new products would flow out because the development cost will be much lower and equal for all manufactures.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.