42 karma · joined December 11, 2012
Registering the trademark probably gets you nowhere with this. You still have to gain popularity with the brand etc. and the mark has to be known to consumers etc. A lot of things go into making a trademark protectable IP and the registry really isn't too high on the list.
In IP, one of the cases we read involved the University of Texas' Longhorns symbol. A small company was using the same exact image (different colors), and the court ended up finding that there was no trademark infringement b/c the Longhorns association w/ the symbol wasn't strong enough (the court relied on surveys of the general population).
Trademarks are one of the weaker areas of IP law. You can't really trademark something that doesn't exist yet. There has to be a strong association between the trademark & your brand etc. & there's several factors to weigh when 1) determining if the trademark exists & 2)determining if they have actually infringed. Also, if it's just a name, it'll most likely be harder to prove a trademark, especially if it is a descriptive name etc.
Oddly, if they're copying the content from the subreddit, and it's your original content, you can probably make a legitimate copyright claim.
Maybe someone like bonobos could do that. All they really need is to stock a couple sizes of each item & then could place the orders online for delivery. This means they could easily scale what is on display & rent out the space whenever a pop-up wants it.
Another idea I've had, and this predates airbnb, is basically an airbnb for kitchens/restaurants so chefs can easily rotate cities. Not really passionate about this idea or feel it would be an amazing business. Would be interested in going to the popup restaurants as a customer though.
Then there's other things like Prime play which may justify them going after low margins in the tablet industry, but there's other good android tablets in that price range.
I think what you're thinking about w/ prime and tablets is their general approach with complimentary products.
For example they're developing original content. This isn't just to profit off content, it's also from the realization that physical books and movies are becoming less imporant and that digital copies are becoming more and more prevalent. This lowers the cost of the goods & reduces the amount Amazon earns by charging a % of the sales. So it makes sense for Amazon to just outright own and distrubute the content too.
But this also compliments other Amazon businesses. If people are watching TV through Amazon then Amazon has more opportunities to advertise their products to individuals. I doubt Amazon plans on loosing money on original content, so it's not a loss leader, but the fact that it boosts the value of their tablets, prime service (which significantly increases the amount people spend at Amazon per year), advertising etc. means that they are willing to accept much lower margins on content production than traditional studios and perhaps even Netflix.
To me, if you wanted to hack the system, you would look at creative approaches to make the market behave in ways that it is not supposed to.
An example that I'm working on is the idea of an alternate currency where the deposits are invested in socially responsible / clean energy companies etc. People would trade their currency via NFC wallets or square equivalents etc. for goods and services. Meanwhile the investment stays with the same company.
This to me hacks the trading system because it uses private contracts & a virtual currency to shift the choice about how money is invested to the consumer & opens up opportunities to make longer sighted investments (that benefit the economy as a whole & the people using this currency) rather than just trying to maximize the profits of an investment fund.
From a "computer hacking" perspective, this is just a mash up of different platforms that have recently developed & using it to create the previously only dreamed of "indexed currencies" etc.
Think about the first word processor compared to a typewriter. A company's choice/ability to adopt the word processor didn't make them a disruptive company. However, the word processor creator entirely disrupted the typewriter company.
In the author's article, he references Office 365. Incorporating new features of 365 as they role out does not make the 365 customer more or less disruptive. What's disruptive is that 365 is attacking dropbox / google docs / other service providers.
In fact, when the author asks is the term "disruption" relevent if businesses become adaptable is kinda silly. Adaptable businesses open up opportunities for more disruption. If a business is willing to take on new ways of doing things then they are more likely to become customers of a new disruptive product or service, whereas old non adaptable businesses would limit the new product's potential client base / make it harder to find first adopters.
On another note, many of the issues I have faced while working on my JD have involved looking at supply chains while tackling issues like climate change & corporate social responsibility. There's a lot of research being put into things to track where products are coming from & new standards in things like requests for proposals requiring suppliers to be socially & environmentally responsible. Still, not every business participates in this practice. Partially because of the cost & also because it's hard to demonstrate this type of responsiblity to the consumer. Oddly, there's other companies like Red Lobster which buys 100% of its seafood from sustainable fisheries, but you'll never see a single hint of this in their stores & advertising.
Relating to the concept above, I am working on an idea for a virtual complementary currency that is used to both finance socially responsible companies & steer money through supply chains etc. to other responsible companies. That was a long winded explanation, but just think "Bitcoin meets responsible investing." Another way to imagine it would be to think about trading Certificates of Deposit when buying / selling goods instead of trading cash. The receiver gets something of value, but the fact that it's in a CD means that they cannot break the investment you created without incurring a penalty.
The part that relates to supply chains / sweat shops is that to exchange the currency for its cash value there is a hefty exit fee. This prevents companies you do business with from immediately liquidating the currency and ending the socially responsible investments you committed the currency to. It also opens the opportunity to vary the exit fee depending on how responsible a company is. Thus, you could leave something like an 8% exit fee (like an exit load on a mutual fund) on all businesses, including sweatshops in other countries. But if you find a sweatshop that is treating employees better etc. you could reduce or eliminate the exit fee. Doing this would cause the responsible sweatshops to value the currency more & make it more likely that businesses who accept the currency will seek out these suppliers in their supply chains. So I could go on, but basically the idea is to create entitlements (in the legal sense) through private contracts that cause the currency you spend to flow to more ethical businesses.
I've slowly started exposing my idea to friends to get more input and hoping to turn it into a company. Most of my discussions have been on the investment side of the currency & not the Coasean approach to ethical supply chains. Im also looking to do possibly do an independent study during my final semester of law school this fall that would look into all the legal aspects of securities/banking/financial regulation involving an alternate currency where the deposits finance socially responsible / clean energy companies. There's a ton of ways to do it, but each comes with a different set of legal burdens.
I'm also slowly starting to network through friends to find a possible co-founder for a company based on this idea with the hope of applying to Y-combinator this winter. (I have dabbled w/ programming for fun, but haven't built anything too complex. I also realized that I mostly just liked learning the syntax & solving puzzles so my latest efforts have just been solving Project Euler stuff w/ Haskell for fun but with no intention of using the language in the real world).
For anyone wondering where the companies' profit would come from, it would come from exchanges on the system. Unlike bitcoin's P2P system, this would be a centrally managed currency. This means that the payment systems would also be managed by the company. They would take a small fee for each payment made with the currency system. However, since all payments would have to happen through the company's system, the company could charge a lower rate than square & other competitors (because the company gets to take a fee off of all future transactions instead of just the individual transaction & then passing the cash off to a private individual who is free to use whatever payment/banking system they want.)
Sorry if this was a a bit rambling / not too clear. Didn't want to spend too much time writing this before work.
When building a power plant the expected return is usually about 40 years. We shouldn't be asking ourselves what infrastructure we want in 5-10 years, but how we want our energy infrastructure to look in 30-50 years. In 30 years I'm pretty confident solar will be cheaper than natural gas, so why build out all this infrastructure to switch to natural gas cars etc?
At best natural gas is a good resource for handling the intermittency problem with solar. Gas power plants fire up and shut down very quick and efficiently comared to other types of power. Thus they're a great compliment to a power source that currently cannot be stored for night time use.
The wiser long term strategy the defense establishment is taking isn't just stockpiling weapons for a resource war, but learning how to innovate so they won't even need to fight over those resources.
Because of this, Amazon has few resources that make sense for partnering up w/ smaller and local regional grocery stores. These stores have independent supply chains are warehouses. This is where Amazon has expertise and advantages. If Amazon teamed up with them, then they would have to rely on the store's existing supply chain logistics and infrastructure, rather than use any of Amazon's advantages.
This means if Amazon were to actually add anything besides a website and the brand name, they would have to either 1) delve into the actual home delivery business, something they do not have any expertise in as they currently outsource it to other postal companies, or 2) they would have to undertake some sort of join venture to restructure the grocery stores supply chain (thus defeating the point of trying to take advantage of the grocery store's incumbent advantages).
Thus, unless Amazon makes a big effort to expand its business by building a warehouse to doorsteps delivery system, or undertakes rebuilding the grocer's supply chain, the only thing Amazon gets out of partnering with a grocery store is running the risk that the grocer may tarnish Amazon's name with shoddy service / products.
If anything, I think it would be smarter for Amazon to just buy a smaller local / regional grocery chain in a heterogeneous market. The ideal would be to buy a lower end grocer like a piggly wiggly in a market that also supports higher end grocers. You continue operating the Piggly Wiggle/low end grocer under the same brand name and don't even publicize the fact that Amazon owns and operates it. You then slowly switch over the logistics & infrastructure / supply chain supporting the low end Piggly Wiggly to work w/ Amazon's existing supply chain / warehouses & anything new that Amazon has to build to develop its grocery service. You then launch the Amazon Delivery service which has it's own branding but relies on the same back end/logistics that Piggly Wiggly is running on. This means that Amazon's logistics for the Piggly Wiggly brick and mortar stores are subsidizing the costs of the infrastructure for the Amazon Online Grocer while Amazon works on building up the online customer base needed to justify the cost of running an online grocer. Additionally, I assume there is a small overlap between shoppers at lower end grocer's like Piggly Wiggly (Sorry I keep picking on Piggly Wiggly), and consumers who want online grocer services. This means that Amazon won't be cannibalizing much of the brick and mortar business by pressing the online store because they will probably be different customers. Amazon could further help target different customers by opening up the Online store in zip codes that have few to no Piggly Wiggly shoppers. This means that Amazon is basically opening up a virtual grocery store in an area that would normally reject the Piggly Wiggly brand but still uses the same warehouses/supply chain to deliver the goods to the consumer.
First, the sensor can be placed anywhere by anybody. Considering that large studies have been conducted just to verify whether the data collected at actual scientific stations on things like temperature are conducted, I don't think that independently placed temperature / CO2 sensors etc. can be that reliable for reporting data.
Second, carbon etc. diffuses in the atmosphere and spreads around the globe. It's one of the most disturbing things about this externality. CO2 from LA can have just as much impact in India as it does in California. However, when measuring a group's contribution, especially per capita, it becomes extremely important to consider where in that group's geography that sensor is being placed. For example if it's an area w/ aluminum plants burning coal with a low population level, then placing the sensor in an area removed from the aluminum plant will mean that little of the area's carbon dumping is actually measured because the carbon spreads into the atmosphere before it can be measured by the sensor. On the flip side, if you do it in an urban area that uses a ton of electricity, far removed from the coal power plants that are generating the electricity, then the sensor does not accurately reflect that group's carbon contribution.
What I do like about the idea is that it is easily accessible data. Even if the individuals placing the sensors are not that trustworthy, it would be extremely helpful if this initiative encourages governments and labs to start opening up more data on these points for everyone to take a look at and examine on their own.
I think it would be much more effective if the board included sensors for things like carcinogens and other pollutants that people will actually have a NIMBY, or an "OMG, I'm breathing that!" response to. Having a neighbor inform you about toxins in the air around you is much more likely to cause a reaction and motivate people to be environmentally responsible than if you tell them "there's 400 ppm of carbon in the air around here!" Sadly, even if they are normal levels of toxins, the person will probably react more to the toxin information than to the carbon information because it's hard to connect with harms that are not concrete, spread out across people, and so far removed from the individual.
Basically, I told him I expected something like 4square to come along that tells you not specifically who (strangers) is at certain locations, but give a profile of the overall group that has checked into the location. The easiest example could be just showing what bars in an area are currently filled with liberals, and which ones currently filled with republicans. Maybe even a sliding color scale that shows just how political they are or how heavily the population of the bar swing ones way. However, I would imagine it to include a much wider list of attributes to include things like what type of movies and music I like etc. and point out what locations are filled with like minded individuals right now. Or even based on moods. Or even things like what I want out of the night (show what percentage of the population at a certain bar is looking to make new friends so you don't end up at a bar full of people who want to be left alone). There was more to it than this, but I haven't thought about it for awhile.
A second thing this reminded me of was the idea of an icebreaker app. You go to a bar, coffee shop etc., check in, and then the app asks you an icebreaker style question. You then type in your answer. After you give your answer, you get a list of every answer by everyone else at the bar (but not their identity). You then get to pick one of those answers as your favorite, and the author's identity (or maybe just picture, leaving you to still ask for the name) is revealed. Basically it reverses the introduction process. Rather than thinking of something clever to say and going around picking people to say it to, someone picks the clever comment and gets to approach that person.
Finally, what this article made me think of that hasn't occurred to me in the past is the value of these networks to connect me to people in IRC chats / forums etc. The basic thought is to create chats accessible only to people 2, 3 degrees of separation away from you etc. (or with x amount of common interests, or whatever FB thinks would be a good match). You then have an option to start a chat, and then anonymously chat with strangers that are reasonably close to your real life contacts. This means if you hit it off with a random person on the internet just based off random interests you share then you have an actual ability to reach out and get an introduction in a safe way.
I mostly believe this because of how early in the era of electric car technology we are in right now compared to the internal combustion engine era. Many technologies follow an exponential curve in performance, quality, lowering of cost etc. over time. However, at a certain point the curve flattens out. As an example, look at how much the top speed of travel by humans increased from the creation of the steam engine all the way to the launch of the space shuttle. Humans managed to perfect the technology and it grew at an exponential speed. (think of small improvements of train technology over time for a hundred year, then rapidly followed up by the introduction of cars, planes, jets, then space travel in a much shorter period of time).
When you compare this to internal combustion engines, they are much later in their evolution than electric cars. This suggests electric cars are in for a long period of exponential growth, while internal combustion engines are closer to the flattening of the curve (which may still be a long way off anyways.)
Additionally, you have to look at the fuel costs. Oil is expected to continue increasing in cost. It's in higher demand than ever before, it's becoming harder and more expensive to extract etc. Meanwhile, electricity can come from many sources, including solar which is developing at an exponential rate and could start to bring the cost of electricity down in the near future.
Now, your question concerned the price tag of the car, not the ownership costs. However, this is actually relevant to the ownership costs. The rising cost of the fuel can inject uncertainty into the market about cars that run on fossil fuels if the price of those fuels get too high. This can do two things 1) it can increase the cost of capital for traditional car companies because banks are unwilling to lend to a manufacturer of cars with high operating costs, and 2) it could create investor doubt and bring down the stock's price. If either of these things happen for a sustained period of time then it could create an ugly feedback loop for a manufacturer. If 1 or 2 happens and they have to raise the price of their product, then the market may begin to doubt the manufacturer more (especially if Tesla continues bringing down its price tag).
If the traditional manufacturers get caught in a spiral with their traditional engines then they may have to quickly develop electric alternatives. This will likely be fairly tricky. First, they lose part of the brand they have invested in for their traditional line cars (and their trademarks are some of their most valuable assets). Second, they will likely have to abandon traditional internal combustion drivetrain technology that they have already invested in but not recouped the profits of (although they shouldn't fret too much about sunk costs and focus on moving forward). And third, most importantly, if they want to make a quick transition that can at least restore faith from the market, they will likely have to license technology from companies like Tesla (bringing Tesla's cost down while increasing the costs of the traditional competitors)
Finally, one of the biggest costs in a Tesla is the battery. I haven't read about the cost of the battery for a couple years, but I remember reading that the Roadster's battery cost about $40K, and that the S uses the same battery (or at least battery technology). I assume the cost has come down a bit since then, but regardless, the party is likely the most expensive single part of the car. This is extremely relevant because many actors have an interest in producing more efficient batteries (Cell phone companies, Energy Companies, The Military etc.). All these mean that more companies will be putting pressure on the market to develop more efficient battery technology and to bring the cost down.
2) Can't speak as confidently about this because I haven't heard about Tesla's racking up that many miles yet.
However the two things I would consider are 1) operating costs, and 2) legacy costs. As I mentioned before, the price of oil is going up, while the price of electricity is more promising. This means that the cost to the consumer of operating a combustion engine increases, and could offset the increased operating expenses from failure of Teslas in real conditions. As for legacy costs, just look at the history of American auto manufacturers vs. Asian manufacturers. One of the reasons the Asian manufacturers were able to undercut their American rivals was because they did not have retired workers living off pensions. They had lower legacy costs. This is true for Tesla, just as it was true for the previous Asian manufacturers. Of course pensions and unions are no longer anywhere near as important as they were 30 years ago, this could still bring down the lifetime cost of a vehicle from a manufacturers perspective. This means that fuel costs can offset reliability costs from the consume perspective, and legacy costs can offset the reliability costs from the manufacturer perspective.
3) I honestly have no clue how far into development any of these companies are for their own electric vehicles. Honestly though, how much of their capital can they devote to developing electric cars? They probably won't throw the kitchen sink at the problem. Thus, if they are only directing a percentage of their resources to electric cars, then their electric car divisions may only have the same amount of resources as Tesla does. Thus, the only advantage they have over Tesla is brand, but right now given the Tesla hype, it seems brand is in Tesla's favor anyways.
Also, other autos getting into electric can help Tesla by bringing the cost of batteries down, and by spurring the development of a national charging network (And hopefully better cafes along the highway for us to wait at while our cars charge).