Ask HN: When is it ok to copy/steal an idea? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: When is it ok to copy/steal an idea?

5 pointskomlenic15 comments

More accurately: What's the difference between "stealing" an idea, and seizing an opportunity to "do it better"?

I find myself often shooting down ideas for websites/projects that I'd like to pursue, because "someone already did that" or I feel I would be stealing/copying the idea in some unethical fashion.

Is it unethical to see a poorly implemented but good idea and run with it? Where's the line between "wow they did this better" and "wow these hacks totally stole that"?

View on HN

Don't steal code, replicate functionality. Don't steal graphics, but be inspired by a website's theme. Dont's steal trademarked or copyrighted material.

Good concise advice, and that's certainly a baseline. In my case I am speaking (asking) more about replicating functionality or an idea, which is a lot more difficult to know where to draw a line on.

In the U.S. software is copyrighted, not patented. Business Processes (and other processes) are patented. Those processes may be entirely manifest by a particular software implementation, so we think of the patent as being for a software product. Business process patents are murky law right now, google "Bilski".

So one line would be: if the idea isn't patented, or it is, but you don't think the patent is valid, and have the money to back up your claim, or just feel ornery, then go for it.

People replicate functionality all the time. Why should that be unethical? I wouldn't just replicate it for no good reason. A good reason, and one that the spirit of the law is supposed to support, is, does it provide new value to the customer? Coincidentally, that is the same question you should be asking yourself if you plan to take your work to market.

In general, you can't tell if you're "stealing" (more properly "infringing") on copyright material. A court has to decide formally.

The difference is "YOU stole MY idea" vs "I built a better implementation of YOUR idea." In other words, just perception. remember how many different kinds of cereal are in the store.

If you wanted to start a car company, would you be concerned about "stealing ideas" because there were already other makes of cars on the market?

I think your response hits at the intent of my question. It is widely held that "execution matters more than idea", but I personally get tripped up by feeling like something has to come from my own light-bulb epiphany to be authentic or ethical. Clearly this is wrong.

Is this model of scenarios more or less correct?:

1 copy a mousetrap design: bad ------- ethical/unethical line ------- 2 build your own mousetrap (even if there's really nothing "new" about it), but market it better or present it differently: pretty good 3 build a better mousetrap: really good 4 invent a whole new way to trap mice: awesome, not likely

2 and 3 are probably where the majority of successful business ventures fall. Most 4's probably started as 2 or 3.

Most 4's probably went out of business a long time ago. It's hard to sell something new in markets that don't trust new things.

You place the ethical/unethical line where you feel it should go; personally I don't see anything wrong with copying designs. I have a few wealthy neighbors. Know how they made their money? Everyday, boring easily copied stuff like car washes, rental real estate or owning a couple of fast food joints. Even the people I know who got rich from technology businesses were doing fairly pedestrian stuff like industrial instrumentation that's been around since the 50's.

What would you say if I saw http://www.whosofftoday.com/ and built essentially a clone at http://www.timeoffscheduler.com/ ?

I'm sure I'd end up doing many little things differently than you, and maybe even a few bigger things, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this example.

Honestly? I don't know if I'd care much. If it turned out to be a perfect clone, I'd probably be a bit irritated, but in the end, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I've been involved in a few tiny ventures (only me, or at most one other person) and one thing they've all had in common is that none of them were unique except in the personal approach I took to them.

So, as an example, you could start a business producing readers for diesel fuel flowmeters as I did, but would you have the same approach to customer service as me? Would you go out of your way to make using the unit as easy for your customer to use as you could?

The employee scheduler is the first software-only project I've ever done (and it was started primarily to learn web development), so maybe my reaction to being cloned would be different. But in the past I've built and sold hardware devices that had plenty of cheap marketplace competition so I'm used to that. My approach was to not care how many people were building the same thing or how much less they charged, but to focus instead on how happy I could make my customers.

I think of the product as a means to an end. The desired end result is profit and happy customers. The product or service is just the route you take to get there and really not that important in itself.

Awesome reply, thank you - honestly, I was looking for validation of my own similar thoughts on the subject. I have previously written about this subject here (very similar to your response): http://www.komlenic.com/242

The line is innovation. If you actually bring something new to the table people close to the original idea will still say cheap knockoff, but most won't. Just look at the phone to blackberry to iphone progression no one considers any of them to be knockoffs or stolen ideas even though they largely innovated directly on what had come before.

Totally, that is one sad thing about a lot of European startups. They take one idea but don't innovate it.

Always. Ideas are exactly that. If you even suspect that you can execute an idea better than a version that is currently available or one that is being set in motion, then there is no reason why you shouldn't attempt to execute it.

If ideas were even half as regulated as the patent system, then the world would be a miserable and stagnant place.

If there is a company doing business in the marketplace and you see an opportunity to enter and compete in that market, that is entirely ethical provided you do not infringe on their intellectual property. For example, Noyce and Moore left Shockley to form Fairchild in order to pursue the semiconductor market.

Instead of replicating/copying/stealing/whatever you could also try working together.

Side note: if you come up with an idea and only -then- see it has already been done, I wouldn't even consider it copying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com