Hi Walt,
Great idea separating it from the SX thread. I will try to make a few
points that wasn't made in Andy's excellent earlier reply.
>I am separating this from the SX thread because it is a very
>different topic and the points Myke raises needs
>more than a short casual answer.
<SNIP>
{Quote hidden}>I have started with Myke Predko's comments and
>added comments of my own. Myke thanks for the
>opportunity to look for a few moments at a bigger
>picture than todays lunch money.
>
>Walter Banks
>
>----------
>> From: myke predko <
.....mykeKILLspam
@spam@PASSPORT.CA>
>>
>> On the Basic Stamp Clones Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>> > "It is a shame that so many
>> >companies have chosen sell reverse engineered derivatives of those
>> >products and discourage many creative developers from promoting
>> >their ideas in hardware and software".(end of soapbox)
>>
>> I don't agree with you on this - PAX has spent a long time without
>> significantly improving their products and just raking in the profits.
>
>I disagree. They promoted a good idea through ads, trade shows
>and they developed the product line over time. Their continued
>promotion continued to develop a market for the Stamp and
>Microchip PIC based products. They tirelessly promoted neat
>solutions to complex problems.
Fine. I don't disagree with this and I think we're moving on to a new
subject (and I'll talk about it more below). This new subject being, did
Parallax *first* come up with the idea?
If they did, I would agree with you that they should enjoy some sort of
protection.
But they didn't. The earliest reference I have for this idea is in my 1982
Intel Microcontroller's databook with an 8052 burned with a BASIC interpreter.
I agree that the Stamp is a pretty good product, but if somebody comes out
with a better one, is complaining about it justified or a thumb suck? If
PAX promotes their product, are they entitled to feel like their competitors
are unfairly riding their coattails?
>Innovation is high risk. Idea's are judged after their introduction. The
>cost of copying a good idea is much lower than the development effort
>for new good idea's. We have Patents, Copyrights and many other
>intellectual property rules that collectively encourage us to be
>aggressive about developing and promoting new ideas. This is the
>carrot that rewards success.
No concerns or arguments here.
{Quote hidden}>This is part of a separate thread about a personal experience of Myke's
>
>> Their feeling was they came up with the original idea and I was
>> tresspassing on their intellectual property by presenting source
>> code in the book.
>
>Maybe you were. Taking the hard nosed approach to the comment
>you used their idea to promote your book as a salable item Did you
>also use the publicity derived from your book to promote them? Did
>you seek their permission to use the material in your book? One of
>the definitions of profit is that everyone is better off.
As Andy pointed out, I did solicit companies repeatedly to advertise in the
book (Bytecraft is in there for example).
The project in question was the Serial LCD Interface (I've already gotten a
few questions about this). The company is (was?) on this list and had the
same opportunities as everybody else did - they did not choose to respond to
my repeated requests.
When they complained, through McGraw-Hill, I sent an add from a 1990 Popular
Electronics showing a Serial LCD Interface for sale. They have been asked
to show where my code (which is available in the book is the same as
theirs). Neither McGraw-Hill nor myself have heard back.
This happened last week while I was away on business and I ended up spending
$100 of my own money in long distance bills and having my wife FedExing the
magazine to McGraw-Hill's lawyers - so I'm pretty steamed about the whole
thing.
>I am not singling you out just using the example.
No problem. I probably should have put in more information in my previous
note. And, I'm probably a bit raw over what happened.
{Quote hidden}>> If somebody comes up with a clone of your product that's
>> better, cheaper and compatible either you up the ante or
>> get left in the dust.
>
>There is a difference between clean room clones and reverse
>engineering. Clean room clones very often have new
>innovation in them, often as significant as the original. In many
>cases the science in reverse engineered products cannot
>even be described by the companies that promote that
>kind of derivative product.
No argument there, but in the type of reverse engineered products you are
citing are probably violating the copyright/patents/intellectual property
laws of the original and are unquestionably breaking the law.
{Quote hidden}>> In the end, it's the customer that wins.
>
>I am not so sure. In the short term that may be true the customer
>has a product that does not have the development costs built in
>but they are going to have to individually develop the idea to the
>next step without the original idea holder's support. One way of
>looking at innovative products is a form of distributed development.
>
>Assume for a moment that only unprogrammed parts existed
>in the worst case each developer would be responsible for their
>own development tools. Someone develops an assembler and
>offers it to his friend for half his development costs there-by
>making both of the more competitive the rest of the
>developers in the world. It also develops a new market for
>the innovation of those that specialize in tools alone. Their
>innovation makes everyone's job easier, kill the incentive
>and we will all be back to making our own tools.
>
>If the effort to reverse engineer a product had been used to
>create a better user interface for example then everyone
>including the original developer would benefit.
No arguments. I probably should have been more explicit.
>> I've tried to avoid the obvious example of the IBM PC, but I can't.
>
>It is a great example of how a cloning was part of a business
>plan. When IBM was planning the PC one of the considerations
>was there had never to that time been a successful computer that
>did not have an open architecture. IBM sold a lot more computers
>than if it had been a closed design. It also encouraged many
>innovative developers to develop their craft.
As Andy said, it wasn't part of the business plan at all. I used to work
with the IBM Toronto patent Attorney testing clones looking for patent
infringments. IBM is pretty vigorous in suing companies that use without
license their technology. If you're an IBM and Intel hater, you'll probably
disappointed to know how much money actually goes back to IBM and Intel from
your clone (and will continue to do so for the next decade or so) and the
chips in it.
>Idea companies depend on the mix of ideas that work and
>those that did not. I encourage the development of "new" ideas
I think we're in complete agreement here. My original point was (and still
is - although I'm probably more eloquent here) that some companies have made
a lot of money off of a product that wasn't their original idea and when
somebody produces a legitimate competing product, they have no right to
complain.
The issue I took with PAX and the company that contacted McGraw-Hill is,
they simply aren't the first and the competition was legitimate. I probably
should have made that more explicit on this point in my original note.
>('nuff said)
Agreed - although I would love talking more about virtual peripherals.
myke
Check out "Programming and Customizing the PIC Microcontroller" at:
http://www.myke.com
