When does inspiration become theft of the idea? | Hacker News Reader

When does inspiration become theft of the idea?

betsylerner.wordpress.com

14 pointsdctoedt9 comments

I would argue that ideas can't be stolen - only the execution can.

Improving someone else's idea by improving the execution is the primary way innovation and business works, there are rarely completely new ideas/products. Most "new" things are just improvements on old things/products.

The execution can be copied however, and if too much copying with not enough differentiation is taking place, it's theft.

I can't clone Facebook completely, change the logo, add a dislike button and then call it my own. That's theft, not innovation. However, I could take all the best ideas from Facebook, from Twitter, Gowalla etc. and create a unique social network I could call my own. That's innovation.

Pownce was a good example. It was Twitter with new features, but they didn't copy Twitter. They copied the idea and improved on it, but they didn't copy the look and branding. It would be theft if they tried to immitate the graphical profile and user interface of Twitter down to the smallest detail. Twitter won the battle, but it wouldn't be wrong if Pownce did even though Twitter was the first.

Theft: http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/16/war-zynga-sues-the-hell-out...

Borderline (compared to Halo): http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/n-o-v-a-2-near-orbit-vanguard...

Okay (compared to Groupon): http://livingsocial.com

Theft means you take something away. You don't take something away when you copy the execution. As such, it cannot be theft. The counterargument that you take away revenue is hypothetical at best, and still not taking something physical directly away from the owner.

You contradict yourself when stating innovation is improving current executions of ideas. Too much of this, and suddenly it's something called theft?

If you merely copy the execution of the competition 1:1, you won't win over your competitor. You need to offer a key advantage. That's where the innovation takes place: the small step differentiating your execution from the original. In doing so, you don't steal, but add something. Adding something can never be stealing.

> Theft means you take something away

Counterexample: theft of services.

If we're talking about the term theft in the practical sense (and not the legal sense), I don't agree that theft necessarily have to take something away from those you steal from. Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's consent. This doesn't have to be physical stuff, it can also include digital properties like copyrighted material.

> You contradict yourself when stating innovation is improving current executions of ideas. Too much of this, and suddenly it's something called theft?

No, you got it all wrong. I argue that too little improvement of current executions is theft. I can't clone Facebook completely, change the logo, add a dislike button and then call it my own. That's theft, not innovation. However, I could take all the best ideas from Facebook, from Twitter, Gowalla etc. and create a unique social network I could call my own.

> If you merely copy the execution of the competition 1:1, you won't win over your competitor. You need to offer a key advantage. That's where the innovation takes place: the small step differentiating your execution from the original. In doing so, you don't steal, but add something. Adding something can never be stealing.

Well, you actually don't necessarily need a better and improved product. The only thing you need to succeed as a clone is better marketing.

I think we actually agree that innovation is just improvement on the current execution.

I'd argue that "copyright" isn't a natural right like possession of property, and therefore you really can't steal copyrighted material.

If I grab your book while you're not looking, and xerox a few pages, I've copied some copyright material. Once I put the book back, YOU CAN'T TELL I'VE DONE IT. That's unlike actually removing the book from your posession. You can tell I've done that.

If you can't tell I've done it, it isn't theft. It's something else. All the laws in the world don't make it otherwise.

Agree, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about copying something and calling it your own.

Copying a book for yourself is one thing, releasing a copy with another name and some minor additions and calling it your own is another thing.

> "I would argue that ideas can't be stolen - only the execution can."

The legal definition of theft in most countries is based on someone (A) depriving another person (B) of a given entity. It is fundamentally the transfer of the entity to A which removes it from B.

It therefore cannot apply to an idea, for which A getting his hand onto the idea will not make B forget about it.

For copyrighted works, creating a copy is is not depriving someone of the original entity, so it is not stealing, but counterfeiting.

Along the same vein, you can't steal something from someone if he has not acquired it in the first place. Creating a copy of an entity and selling it or giving it for free might cause monetary grief to the original owner (which might sell his entity for less, if at all, than if the copy did not exist), but it is not stealing either.

I agree with you on the legal definition of theft.

I meant theft in the normal way it's used in the language - as taking/copying something that doesn't belong to you.

However, you're absolutely right that counterfeiting/copyright infringement is not theft in the legal sense.

Even in the 'normal way' theft is not the same as taking something or copying something. Maybe a lot of interpretations of taking/copying are labelled theft; it does not mean the term theft is used correctly. In this case, I would argue that theft is pretty much equivalent to the legal definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com