Related:

• Invention is evolutionary and inevitable, not revolutionary and idiosyncratic
• Phan: 11 types of cross-industry innovation
• Study: Most Important Innovations Are Not Patented
• Jared Diamond on Inventors and Innovation
• Enski, Patent Dystopia, How the Patent System Strangled Innovation, Job Creation and the Economy

Interesting post by  Mike Masnick on Techdirt. He writes:

For many years, we’ve tried to argue how important it is to understand the difference between innovation and invention. While it may seem like a minor point of semantics, it actually plays quite heavily into the debate over the patent system. Invention is the process of coming up with something new. Innovation is taking that something new and successfully bringing it to market in a way people want. A quote I’ve heard a few times sums it up thusly: “Invention is turning money into ideas. Innovation is turning ideas into money.” … The reason this is so important is that a patent system really only makes sense if it’s the invention part that’s important and that invention is basically the pinnacle of advancement in the space. Instead, if it’s innovation that’s more important, and innovation is an ongoing process that is sped along by competition, then there is little reason to have a patent system at all.

Update: from The Problem with Intellectual Property: “Ridley (2020, p. 347) (“patents tend to favour inventions rather than innovations: upstream discoveries of principles, rather than downstream adaptation of devices to the market.”).”

“If you oppose property rights in ideas, you believe in communal ownership of them, so you are a commie! And then the other half of IP proponents get indignant if you accuse them of believing in property rights in ideas. “Not at all!” they retort. We only believe in property rights in the application of ideas, or “the implementation of” ideas. Whatever that means.” From Ayn Rand: “An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies.” See IP isn’t about owning ideas; those who oppose ownership of ideas are commies.

My personal view is that all these distinctions are lazy, unrigorous, metaphorical bullshit: invention versus innovation; creation and invention versus discovery; IP in “the application of” ideas versus ideas “themselves.” More on this later but see e.g. Ayn Rand’s ridiculous distinction between innovation and discovery: “a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention“—since one is “created” and the other is not, blah blah blah. The fundamental point is not between types of information or knowledge—whether information is invention, or innovation, or discovery (or Craig Wright’s irrelevant and mindless distinction between “data” and “information”)¹—but between the distinct roles of scarce means and knowledge in human action: actors employ scarce means, guided by knowledge. Whether you refer to knowledge as knowledge, or ideas, information, recipes, techniques, invention, innovation, discoveries, etc. is beside the point; the exact term and classification is not significant. See Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action.

***

Once Again: The Great Inventors Often Were Neither Great, Nor Inventors

from the revisiting-history dept

For many years, we’ve tried to argue how important it is to understand the difference between innovation and invention. While it may seem like a minor point of semantics, it actually plays quite heavily into the debate over the patent system. Invention is the process of coming up with something new. Innovation is taking that something new and successfully bringing it to market in a way people want. A quote I’ve heard a few times sums it up thusly: “Invention is turning money into ideas. Innovation is turning ideas into money.” If you look at the true history of major breakthroughs, you’ll quickly learn that invention is fairly meaningless — and the important point is the innovation. In fact, if you look at all the “great inventors” championed by American history, you’ll quickly realize that most weren’t great inventors at all, but rather innovators, who later (often through questionable means) took credit as the inventors they never were. Even though those who actually are familiar with the history of these products know this already, it’s still nice to see these false stories of invention getting more exposure.

Last year, there was a book showing how Thomas Edison wasn’t the great inventor he claimed to be. Now, there’s a new book suggesting not only was Alexander Graham Bell not the great inventor many hold him up to be, but the famous story of him rushing to the patent office to beat Elisha Gray’s patent filing by mere hours may hide the fact that Bell actually cheated the system with the help of a corrupt patent examiner, who shared Gray’s filing with Bell and then helped make it appear that Bell’s filing came first. While this should raise even more questions about why either man was able to get a patent on an idea that was getting plenty of attention from many sources, and thus should have been considered obvious, it also adds to the list of “great inventors” who really did very little inventing.

The reason this is so important is that a patent system really only makes sense if it’s the invention part that’s important and that invention is basically the pinnacle of advancement in the space. Instead, if it’s innovation that’s more important, and innovation is an ongoing process that is sped along by competition, then there is little reason to have a patent system at all. Those who hold up Edison, Bell, the Wright Brothers and others as examples of why the patent system should exist are pointing to the wrong role models. The more detailed you look at their records you realize that both men cheated — and used the patent system not to help protect “inventions,” but to get monopolies that kept out real competition, slowed down true innovation and built up unfair monopolies they didn’t deserve.

1. KOL234 | Vin Armani Show: Live from London: Kinsella vs. Craig Wright Debate on Intellectual Property,  at about 43:52. [↩]