Issue #60
Last Update October 22, 2008
Arts and Reviews Innovation by Peter H. Salus* August 20,2007 For 300 years, from the Statute of Anne on, copyrights and patents have intended to assure that the creative endeavors of individuals are protected. In The Economist for 4 August 2007, I read:
[I]nnovation and the knowledge-based economy are all the rage. Since June innovation has been enshrined, along with universities and skills, in the formal title of a ministerial department.
It started me thinking.
Over the past decade or so, the word "innovation" has been employed ever more frequently, but with no gain in clarity. In fact, I'm not quite certain any more what the word means and what it refers to.
David Katz wrote me
I distinguish between invention and innovation as follows:
Invention is the creation of something new, either a thing or an idea that did not exist before, or a new arrangement of previously existing elements that serves a new purpose. Innovation is the incremental improvement of an invention. Following these principles, an invention is deserving of (limited) intellectual property protections, while innovations are not.
Writing a song is an invention; creating a new arrangement of the song is an innovation. Writing a novel is an invention; re-editing it or reissuing it in a different format is an innovation. Lotus 1-2-3 was an invention; Excel is an innovation.
Henry William Chesborough (Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, 2005), writes about running R&D organizations in what he thinks of as a more open way. That is, balancing internal R&D with the acquisition of the results of external (= others') R&D. He seems to think, for instance, that IBM invented "open innovation" with the beginning of the Internet
A decade earlier, Eric von Hippel's The Sources of Innovation (1994) seems to assert that innovation is "process innovation" and that it is something managed by manufacturers. Innovation, he argues, will take place where there is greatest economic benefit to the innovator. (As I'll point out later, von Hippel's point of view has changed over the years.)
Charles Babbage (1791-1871) believed that innovation was the implementation of invention. [Yes, that Charles Babbage.] And Norbert Wiener (1894-1964) believed that creativity and invention were the spurs to innovation. (Clearly Babbage and Wiener would agree with Katz.)
On a more contemporary level, we have Steve Jobs: "Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower" and Woody Allen: "If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing anything very innovative."
But neither Steve nor Woody helps us as to what innovation is. Might Bill Gates do better? On 3 March 1998 he said: "Innovation depends on freedom to move constantly from one frontier to the next," to the US Senate Judiciary Committee. And two years later (7 May 2000) he declared:
The symbiotic nature of software development may not be obvious outside the industry, but it is a phenomenon that has produced enormous consumer benefits. Windows and Office--working together and drawing on each other's features and innovations--have improved personal computing for millions.
Of course, we may have a few problems with this, for on 1 March of this year, the EU issued a statement
In acknowledging the work of its designated trustee, Dr. Neil Barrett, the EU said it examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies, and concluded that among those, only four may deserve to claim "a limited degree of innovation."
Recently, the US Supreme Court (in 550 US 04-1350 KSR Int'l Co. v Teleflex Inc.; the decision is dated April 30, 2007) that:
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws.
In this, I think the US Supreme Court reveals itself to be closer to Bacon and Wiener than to the more mercantile authors/speakers.
I have a handful of recent books I want to mention -- all with "innovat-" in their titles. And some are quite good, though they may not have much "innovation" in their contents.
Though I admire much of his work, Clayton M. Christensen is a prime employer of today's vocabulary item. In 1997, his The Innovator's Dilemma appeared; in 2003, he was co-author of The Innovator's Solution; in 2005, he wrote the foreword to Fast Innovation.
The Innovator's Dilemma is about corporate adaptation to "disruptive technology." (Though he employs the term quite frequently, Christensen nowhere credits Joseph Schumpeter's creation of "creative destruction" in 1942 -- the process of transformation that accompanies innovation.) The Innovator's Solution concerns "creating and sustaining successful growth." I've not read Fast Innovation.
2004 brought me Innovation and its Discontents by Adam B. Jaffe and Josh Lerner, a fascinating and insightful examination of the patent process and just how "broken" it is. Jaffe and Lerner believe that the patent system is what made American industry great in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They are right. But, unfortunately they confine themselves to the US patent system and ignore copyright as well as most of the world outside the USA. (They do mention Clinton's abandonment of WIPO when opposed by the patent bar.) But I remain unconvinced that the "system" endangers "innovation and progress."
In 2005, Eric von Hippel brought out Democratizing Innovation, a truly interesting brief look at the effects of the free- and open-software movements as well as some "physical products." I think that von Hippel is right as to the importance of what he calls "user innovation." But I'd prefer to think of it as "user development."
And this (finally, you sigh) brings me back to my first point: we over-use "innovator," "innovation," and "innovative" beyond reasonable bounds. A too-frequently handled coin becomes worn and loses its features. So too the words of the language.
But The Myths of Innovation by Scott Berkum (2007)employs innovation in its title and frequently in its text, and renders the word nearly featureless. But Berkum's "myths" are of a substance nearer to jelly than to a solid.
Berkum devotes time and energy to debunking the myth of Newton and the apple. He might have glanced at E.N. da C. Andrade's Sir Isaac Newton, first published in1954. Or he might have written of Canute and the tide. Or Washington and the apple tree. But he (entertainingly) sets up his straw men and knocks them down. (It's interesting to note that while Berkum documents the "true" story of the founding of eBay, he fobs off the reader with "the tale of Newton's apple owes its mythic status to the journalists of the day," with no citation nor reference.) Berkum's other "straw men" include Franklin, Whitney, Fulton, Edison, Ford, Carnegie, and Steve Jobs (after Newton, non-Americans were barred from this game).
I attribute much of Berkum's attitude and exposition to his past employment: from 1994-1999 he "was a member of the Internet Explorer team at Microsoft." Certainly a great place to acquire "myths of innovation." For I don't really think that "innovation" is more than a vocabulary item to Microsoft's executives. Over a period of over 20 years, their business model has been one of theft and purchase wherever feasible and of "embrace, extend, extinguish" elsewhere. I didn't originate this. In a brilliant New York Times article John Markoff wrote, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it." (16 July 1996)
Remember, Bill Gates told us that "Windows and Office--working together and drawing on each other's features and innovations--have improved personal computing for millions." and Dr. Neil Barrett, who examined nearly 200 of Microsoft's claims, found but four that might reasonably contain some innovation.
In the recent past, the USPTO (following the overturning of several patents by the courts) has revoked several patents. (The Public Patent Foundation has been prominent in trying to limit abuse of the patent system -- both where computing is concerned [e.g. the Microsoft FAT patent, which was rejected in 2004] and in other areas [e.g. the Pfizer Lipitor patent, rejected in 2005].)
Most computer developments, whether hardware or software, are mere innovations and undeserving of much protection.
On a theological level, of course, "there is nothing new under the sun" [Ecclesiastes 1:9]. But we needn't heed that.
* I'd like to express my thanks to Paul Gooch, President of Victoria University (Toronto), for his patient discussion of this topic with me.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
To be notified of New York Stringer updates and new issues, click here.
New York Stringer is published by NYStringer.com. For all communications, contact David Katz, Editor and Publisher, at david@nystringer.com
All content copyright 2008 by nystringer.com