[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Cutting special deals for open source developers -- noway!
- From: Dave Winer <email@example.com>
- To: David RR Webber - XMLGlobal <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 05:23:46 -0700
As I was reading your story, I was thinking -- why are they developing in a
market that someone else dominates? Why don't they spend their time looking
for something truly new to do, instead of refining someone else's product?
And what of the company with 80 percent market share? Should they be
vulnerable to a handful of features? What about the rest of the fanatical
chess player's product -- is it competitive with the dominant company's
product? That's doubtful if they were able to catch up with only three
months of development. If the users of the BigCo's product want the features
should they have to use the other company's product to get them?
Also, the BigCo appears to have competion in your case study. (The other 20
percent.) Why shouldn't the smart designer do a deal with them to go after
the dominant market leader? Should it require persistence to defeat a market
leader or just an idea and a lawyer? I believe it should require
persistence, and that there's always a zig possible to the leaders' zag --
something clever you can do that they can't do, precisely because they lead.
BTW, this is a common argument -- and people buy into it because it's so
romantic -- the lone inventor who succeeds because patents protected him.
But that is just a romantic story, in the real world the patent holders are
often the BigCo's who act to keep the entrepreneur out of the market
----- Original Message -----
From: "David RR Webber - XMLGlobal" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>
Cc: <email@example.com>; "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Cutting special deals for open source developers --
> Message text written by INTERNET:email@example.com
> Len I know how much money it costs to invent new art in software, that's
> business. I also know that it's possible to recoup your investment and
> a profit, but you have to keep moving and keep the customers satisfied.
> Further I believe software is speech, and protected in the US by the First
> Say you are a fanatic chess player - and you spend six months
> loving creating this great new user interface for chess - with all
> sorts of clever features noone has had before and an
> awesome look-n-feel plus 3D rendering.
> You release an early version of the program for market
> evaluation. Company X - makers of Kasnorok Chess - have
> 80% of the market - they download a copy of your program -
> see its potential and immediately set their programmers to
> replicating the feature set. Three months later - they launch
> their product - crushing yours.
> Sounds familiar?
> Next - instead you spend six months creating Kasnorok Killer -
> the chess playing engine from hell - its internal AI is a next
> generation leap forward - its UI is a command line interface.
> Your Kasnorok Killer wins annual world championship.
> You sell the rights to several companies for the engine.
> Notice the difference here - if you have 'blackbox' software -
> you don;t need a patent - because noone can figure out
> what you did. If you have something they can copy - they
> So pick very carefully what you work on.