Slashdot Mirror
The Hypocrisy In Silicon Valley's Big Talk On Innovation
glowend writes "James Temple writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: 'In the fall of 2011, Max Levchin took the stage at a TechCrunch conference to lament the sad state of U.S. innovation. "Technology innovation in this country is somewhere between dire straits and dead," said the PayPal co-founder, later adding: "The solution is actually very simple: You have to aim almost ridiculously high." But for all the funding announcements, product launches, media attention and wealth creation, most of Silicon Valley doesn't concern itself with aiming "almost ridiculously high." It concerns itself primarily with getting people to click on ads or buy slightly better gadgets than the ones they got last year.' I feel like this may be true as more money and MBA types invade the Silicon Valley. There's a lot of 'me-too' startups with some of the best and brightest figuring out ways to sell me stuff rather the working on flying cars."
Look back at the innovative days of Silicon Valley and pick something, anything you can think of and think of what would happen if you were to try and perform the same thing again today. You could never do it, because overzealous IP has killed all American engineering innovation. Many products now spend a significant amount of their budget on patent attorneys and cross license costs. You simply cannot innovate in today's climate as things presently stand.
Some simple ideas that would help protect IP and turn the tide back for innovation:
A patent fee, every patent that is held by an organization (or it's parents organization) doubles in costs.
- Allows the small time inventory to register patents without undue cost while adding some measure of expense to patent warchest building.
A patent tax, every patent is taxed at a rate that makes large patent war-chests financially unfeasible.
- You can cripple IP trolls on this by increasing the tax for a patent that is not in active production.
Shortening the length of time that a patent is good for based on the type of patent.
- Decreasing a patent's shelf life to 5 years would probably do more to free up the IP logjams than any other thing.
Make RAND rates standardized for everyone and don't allow them to be offset. /reasonable/ rate.
- Everyone pays the same RAND rates and if your patent is essential than anyone can license it at a fixed and
End massive patent paydays like Apple's recent billion dollar court win.
- Reform the financial benefits for 'going nuclear' and seeking large court settlements for patent violations and make the penalties fixed.
There is no room for failure. Without failure, and the ability to take risks, you'll get a lot of me too ish. Silicon Valley thrived when it was cheap to fail, now that it nolonger is you need to look to other places. I'd expect something more radical outta Detroit (where the buildings are almost free) or Kansas City, with the Google Fiber, than the Valley.
Computers have been getting "slightly better than last year" for a few decades now.
Because of that, I'm now running a Quad i7 with a Geforce and a couple terabytes of SSD+HDD rather than a IBM PC with a monochrome adapter and two floppies.
I'm not complaining.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Silicon valley, and more about economic theory. Do free-markets drive the world in the right direction, or does the government? This, as in most things, seems to boil down to a compromise.
We need agile markets, able to open and close companies overnight, therefore allowing for innovation, failure and re-birth. BUT, we also need big, slow-moving government to keep those businesses from harvesting short-term profits and dumping losses on investors/governments.
The problems that we have today (a bit off topic here) are related to business being tied a bit too close to government. Why do we have the lowest congressional approval rating that I can remember? Because they all seem to be bought and sold by the same companies. In reality, though, they're not outright bought and sold, they're just trying to secure a sweet, sweet consulting deal after they retire from government. But I digress.
This article isn't about the hypocrisy in silicon valley in particular, and more about the hypocrisy in people lauding free-market capitalism.
Newton, Xerox Star, Next, Intel's iAXP432, Xanadu Project, the Windows 2001 Tablet, Japan's HD analog TV R&D project, that company that tried to make an online MS-Office competitor with Java applets, and many other "bold" ideas that were ahead of their time failed.
The market and technology has to be "just almost ready" for stuff to take off. If you are too early, then your configuration and vision are probably all wrong. It takes trial and error with consumers and users to tune products right. The first shot at something bold is usually just too quirky or too expensive.
Palm Pilot did Newton better than Newton, and smart devices improved up the ladder through Blackberry until they were ready for mainstream with iPhone having the right mixture of features and ease of use. (Sorry fans, but Newton sucked from a practicality angle.)
And the few times big gambles get wings, competitors usually make a better run at the idea and the payoff is not big enough to justify the up-front risk. VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet is just such an example. After about 3 years of strong sales, Lotus came along and did it better, faster, and cheaper (gambling on IBM PC instead of CPM), and VisiCalc went belly-up. (Software patents didn't really exist back then, which will be another problem with very new ideas.)
In investing, you usually don't want to take a big risk unless there is a big potential payoff. But history shows for big-leap projects, the risks are big but usually not the payoffs. Incremental innovation looks like a better mix of risk and reward to rational investors who study history.
Table-ized A.I.
The money did not evaporate like water, so who got the $$$ that millions of american lost by "investing" in Silicon Valley companies?
The flying car is a symbol for a future that never was.
Give me the self-driving car. So I can reclaim the 1000 hours/year I waste physically guiding my car. I bought a luxury car so I would hate it less, but using it to "experience the drive" is like using an abacus to "experience the math". Fuck that. I have better things to waste my life on.
Now give me another self-driving car without any seats. No airbags, no overengineered crumple zones, no creature comforts. Just a cheap autonomous box on wheels for one-tenth the price. That's the 'car' that will pick up my drycleaning, my groceries. That's the car that will save local businesses, letting them compete with Amazon on convenience and beat them on speed.
That's my future.
This needs to be +5, Awesome. It's exactly right.
Flying cars are DOA until we have self driving cars. On the way home last week, I saw a 5 car pile up. Nose to tail, every one. How did that happen? Either some moron managed to plow into the last car in a row hard enough to drive them all together (been there, done that as one of the hit cars, not the moron) or a chain of morons was all following so closely they couldn't stop as the first moron plowed into stopped cars.
These are the people the "flying car" crowd want flying. I don't even want these people driving, let alone driving over my head at 150 mph or more. These people can have flying cars when we have self-driving flying cars, and never before or the carnage will be obscene.