Slashdot Mirror


Technological Genius Is Timeliness, Not Inspiration

Hugh Pickens writes "Ezra Klein has an interesting essay in the Washington Post about 'simultaneous invention,' where technology advances to the point that the next step is obvious to multiple people at once, and so they all push forward with the same or similar inventions. While the natural capabilities of human beings don't change much from year to year, their environments do, and so does the technology and store of knowledge they can access. 'The idea of the lone genius who has the eureka moment where they suddenly get a great idea that changes the world is not just the exception,' says Steven Johnson, author of Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, 'but almost nonexistent.' Consider Adam Goldberg's CU Community, created in 2003 at Columbia University, a social network that launched first and had cooler features than Facebook, with options for pictures and integrated blogging software. Klein writes, 'Zuckerberg's dominance can be attributed partly to the clean interface of his site, partly to the cachet of the Harvard name and partly to luck. But the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Goldberg was very small, while the difference between what Mark Zuckerberg could do and what the smartest college kid in 1999 could do was huge. It was the commons supporting them both that really mattered.'"

12 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious corollary by grantek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of the reasons software patents are stupid, why patent trolls exist, and why the patent system in general needs cutting down.

    1. Re:Obvious corollary by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is one of the reasons software patents are stupid, why patent trolls exist, and why the patent system in general needs cutting down.

      Your point is valid but I think it transcends software patents. Some patents, inventions or discoveries are simply a product of timing as the article suggests, and they aren't limited to software patents, or even patents.

      A classic example would be the two of the biggest game changers in thinking, and both were co-discovered. Of all the times in history for these ideas to come about, they came about simultaneously from multiple sources:

      Calculus: Leibniz and Newton
      Evolution: Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

      Also...
      Using laser pointers to amuse cats: Patent 5443036 and anyone who has ever seen a cat and laser pointer

    2. Re:Obvious corollary by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's serious. Just look at Douglas Engelbart and his team. Google for Mother of all Demos.

      He came up with all that but 20+ years too soon, and some of his ideas that aren't widely implemented yet are probably still valid too.

      Despite him being too early, his work led to stuff in Xerox PARC, which led to Apple's GUI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface

      So the patent system rewards those who come up with stuff like "one click" and trolls, but the real innovators often won't get rewarded because by the time the masses "get it", your patent has expired.

      To me "Prizes for Innovation" would work better for that. Since hindsight is better than an overworked patent examiner figuring stuff out from vague descriptions. Could have two categories of prizes one selected by the Public, and one by "Experts in the Field".

      Inventing the wheel and a chariot before figuring out how to tame a horse or cow, wouldn't get you as far ;). But when someone else finally tames a horse, a horse drawn cart/chariot might be more obvious to them.

      --
    3. Re:Obvious corollary by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me "Prizes for Innovation" would work better for that.

      Or here's an idea: if you come up with a great idea, you work with a company to manufacture and sell it (or do it yourself) and make a lot of money until someone comes out with an improvement.

      I've always found it interesting that the same people who believe in "free markets" also believe in anti-competitive tools like patents. Does anyone really believe that without the protection of patents there wouldn't be any new products or ideas?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Obvious corollary by zQuo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, implementations are where the hard work is. The idea is worth very little (unless one patents the idea and tries to sue everyone who wants to make something).

      Software copyright already gives plenty of protection and it protects only implementations of an idea. The Phoenix BIOS that overthrew IBM's monopoly of the PC and allowed PC clones to exist (to everyone's benefit) had to surmount copyright protections only, and Phoenix had to spend *a lot* of money to surmount copyright. This is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_BIOS

      With the success of the IBM PC in 1983, Phoenix decided to provide an IBM PC compatible ROM BIOS to the PC market. A licensable ROM BIOS would allow clone PC manufacturers to run the same applications, and even the MS-DOS that was being used by IBM. However, to do this Phoenix needed a strategy for defense against IBM copyright infringement lawsuits. IBM would claim that the Phoenix programmers had copied parts of the IBM BIOS code published by IBM in its Technical Reference manuals.[citation needed] Due to the nature of low-level programming two well-written pieces of code that perform the same function there will inevitably be some degree of similarity. As such it would be impossible for Phoenix to defend itself on the grounds that no part of its BIOS matched IBM's. Phoenix developed a "clean room" technique that isolated the engineers who had been contaminated by reading the IBM source listings in the IBM Technical Reference Manuals. The contaminated engineers wrote specifications for the BIOS APIs and provided the specifications to "clean" engineers who had not been exposed to IBM BIOS source code. Those "clean" engineers developed code from scratch to mimic the BIOS APIs. This technique provided Phoenix with a defensibly non-infringing IBM PC-compatible ROM BIOS. Because the programmers who wrote the Phoenix code had never read IBM's reference manuals, nothing they wrote could have been copied from IBM's code, no matter how closely the two matched.[4] The first Phoenix PC ROM BIOS was introduced in May, 1984, and helped fuel the growth in the PC industry.

      If we had software patents back then, all the new PC's Macs, Amigas, etc. , almost any device that used BIOS-like ideas would have been stillborn; we'd just have really awful clunky PC's made by IBM for a really long time. Implementations of software are already protected by copyright. Software patents patent the idea; ideas are easy to come by. They prevent competing implementations of an idea, where the real hard work is. A software patent will prevent *any* implementation of the idea, if the patent holder is lazy

    5. Re:Obvious corollary by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calculus: Leibniz and Newton

      Evolution: Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

      We have had thousands of game-changing inventions in the history of mankind. What percentage of those were arrived at by multiple inventors, independently, and at roughly the same time? Champions of the belief presented by the article commonly bring up the "classic examples" of Leibniz/Newton, Darwin/Wallace, and Marconi/Tesla. Well, how many non-classic examples are there? Seriously, even if there were a hundred more examples, in the face of all the major scientific/philosophical/mathematical discoveries ever made in every field that would still seem statistically insignificant. I mean, c'mon guys, how about a little critical thinking and perspective here...

      Here's a quote straight from Wikipedia on RADAR:

      "In the 1934–1939 period, eight nations developed, independently and in great secrecy, systems of this type: the United States, Great Britain, Germany, the USSR, Japan, the Netherlands, France, and Italy."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar

      Eight nations? Independently and in secrecy! The individuals who independently created RADAR showed some critical thinking but the fact that everything up to that point both physics, technology and drive really allowed them to succeed.

      Think about what would happen if you were transported back in time to the 1600's. What could you really do with all the knowledge you have about today?

  2. Facebook has nothing to do with innovation by Palestrina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The network effect has more to do with being in the right place at the right time than on the technical merits of the application. A much better solution that occurred 1 year earlier or 1 year later would have failed in the market. Facebook was "good enough" and that is all that was needed.

    But let's not confuse this with innovation.

    1. Re:Facebook has nothing to do with innovation by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem I see with it is that genius actually does matter. If we all sit down and wait for new inventions because 'surely someone will do it' then no one will do it. A single person can change the course of a nation, and it is impossible to predict individual people

      I think you may misunderstand. The argument is that actual genius doesn't really exist. The argument is that the specific individual who comes up with the "invention" is irrelevant. The argument is that there is no stunning ray of sheer brainpower that makes such an "invention" possible - it is, instead, inevitable.

      Imagine, if you will, a train barreling down the tracks towards a helpless puppy. When the train is 1,000 miles away from the puppy, nobody really knows what is going to happen. You can't see the big picture. The folks looking at the puppy don't see the train, and the folks looking at the train can't see the puppy. If somebody were to shout out "oh no, the puppy's gonna get squished!" at that moment in time, it would be genius. But as the train gets closer and closer to the puppy, it becomes more and more obvious. And eventually it is almost impossible not to realize that the puppy is going to be run over.

      This is the argument. As technology rolls forward, it eventually becomes almost impossible not to invent something new.

      You get enough computers chattering away with each-other... Enough people on the web... Enough folks trying to share photos and connect with other people... Cheap enough server infrastructure.. Ample enough bandwidth... Powerful enough databases... And eventually somebody is bound to say "Hey, why don't we throw together some kind of web page where people can keep in touch with each-other and share photos and stuff?"

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  3. !news by drolli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." (Victor Hugo)

    The internet just mad that stronger.

  4. And yet... by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was the commons supporting them both that really mattered.

    And yet our society and our legal systems enshrine individual innovations and creations as sacred property, while suffering the very existence of a commons or a public domain barely with tolerance, denouncing it as communism.

  5. Genius by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Facebook is now an example of "genius", what word shall we now use to describe actual genius?

    And yes, I'm aware that Zuckerberg gets more ass than I ever will, and probably has more than 100 lifetimes of my wealth. My dick doesn't work that well anyway. Question still stands, IMHO.

  6. It could work. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the patent office would have to require a WORKING prototype of whatever you're trying to patent.

    The biggest problem is that the patent office will now accept patent applications for items that do not exist. This allows companies to block other inventors by having a patent filed prior to the inventor inventing the invention.