
They Will Steal Your Idea. They Cannot Steal What Really Matters. - jasonlbaptiste
http://jasonlbaptiste.com/startups/they-will-steal-your-idea-they-cannot-steal-what-really-matters/
======
michael_nielsen
Here's an idea: try creating the compound Ba-La-Cu-O. It's a pretty simple
idea. It can be explained in seconds. Any competent chemist can do it, and
probably a lot of incompetent ones as well. But in 1986 that idea was the key
step in a Nobel Prize. And it may yet turn out to be the foundation for a
massive industry. Sometimes, the idea is nearly all that matters.

~~~
run4yourlives
The fact that the idea is 24 years old and has yet to properly establish
itself kinda refutes the fact that it's all that matters, doesn't it?

~~~
michael_nielsen
I guess if you view winning a Nobel Prize as a failure, then yes, you've
refuted my example. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of people would consider
that a failure, however.

Ideas can, in fact, have value, and that is a function of scarcity. A lot of
entrepreneurs apparently misjudge this, thinking that, for example, their idea
to create a social network for X (insert verb of choice) is somehow valuable
in its own right. But in most cases X is so generic that it's not. The
superconductor example I gave is an example where there really is a scarcity,
and so there is value.

~~~
run4yourlives
I'm not saying that ideas have no value whatsoever, because clearly a bad idea
properly executed can still be a bad idea.

What I am saying though is that there are few ideas that can be not executed
and/or executed poorly and still render a success.

Of course success is variable, as you point out with regards to the Nobel
Prize here. Assume somebody does execute a strategy to effectively monetize
the superconductor described. As you point out that's a game changer on levels
that will make the Nobel Prize seem rather small.

~~~
michael_nielsen
I agree, on all fronts.

"Ideas don't matter, only execution does" is just a pet peeve. It's as
obviously false as the notion some people have that their (totally obvious)
idea is really valuable.

I like Derek Sivers formulation: ideas are a multiplier on execution. With a
really amazing idea (like the formula for the first high-Tc superconductors)
even run-of-the-mill execution yields big returns.

------
steiger
And this is the reason the abolishment of Intellectual Property won't make the
world any more chaotic or unfair.

Ideas are meant to be shared, and the market competitiveness will reward the
ones that best execute them.

~~~
eavc
Copyright doesn't cover ideas. It covers the execution of ideas. So if you're
going to abolish stuff that merely protects ideas, leave copyright alone.

~~~
sorbus
That was the intention of copyright, anyways. It's gotten a bit beyond that,
to the point that an idea can be copyrighted if phrased correctly. Requiring a
working model to be submitted with every application would go a good way
towards fixing that issue.

~~~
roc
You seem to be confusing copyright and patents.

Neither of which can protect an idea.

Law concerning Trade Secrets comes closest to protecting an idea. But that
doesn't preclude parallel development whatsoever, only theft.

~~~
sorbus
... yes, it seems that I did. Too late for me to edit it, too, so I can't
retract the statement and remove any potential confusion (and my own
embarrassment). My apologies.

------
gacba
I hear lots of people talk about how their idea is some competitive advantage.
Ideas are cheap. Ideas can be stolen. It's how you _execute_ that counts, and
that's what Jason's post drives home. Nicely done.

~~~
ryanhuff
There are some fashionable memes running through entrepreneurship circles
these days that are routinely mentioned in blogs, etc. (fail quick/often,
ideas are cheap, etc). They certainly have merit, but are usually
generalizations that can break-down when applied to specific situations. This
concept of ideas being cheap/worthless is one of them.

Certainly, business ideas on their own usually have little value without
execution. But it really depends. If your differentiator is the idea, you are
at greater risk of direct competition, and so spreading the idea around
without first gaining a foothold is risky, especially if you discuss it with
people who are entrepreneurial minded. Sometimes a startup needs breathing
room to find a true differentiator beyond the idea. I bet there is a long,
long list of people being "wronged" after discussing their plans with others.
Feedback is certainly hugely valuable, but people need to be judicious with
what, and to whom, they reveal.

~~~
edanm
"Certainly, business ideas on their own usually have little value without
execution. But it really depends. If your differentiator is the idea, you are
at greater risk of direct competition, and so spreading the idea around
without first gaining a foothold is risky, especially if you discuss it with
people who are entrepreneurial minded. Sometimes a startup needs breathing
room to find a true differentiator beyond the idea. I bet there is a long,
long list of people being "wronged" after discussing their plans with others.
Feedback is certainly hugely valuable, but people need to be judicious with
what, and to whom, they reveal."

The reason a lot of people say "ideas are cheap" isn't _just_ because there is
no problem in spreading them around. I don't know about other people, but I've
never had an idea that, once I started to execute on it, didn't change a
_lot_. Since (as far as I can tell) this is almost always the case, spreading
the initial idea truly _doesn't_ cost me anything.

Of course, there are fields this isn't true, but this generalization gets
thrown around a lot in these circles because, for most people reading these
blogs, it's true.

------
nadam
I would not be concerned if I would write a web based product. But I am
writing a desktop application in Java. Someone with more resources than me can
copy my stuff very fast and beat me before I can get real traction. My most
important competitive advantage is in the applied algorithms which I was
refactoring so much; it is inside the source code. If they steal that, they
not only steal my idea, they steal my execution. Of course they can also do it
otherwise, but in that case it last more time. The key is in my opinion being
ahead 1-2 years, especially in the beginning. So it might be a good idea to
obfuscate the code. On the other hand it is better to be open, so it would be
cool if I could ship the complete source code so that customers or consultants
could customize my product, (or write plugins) which is quite important in the
case of this product.

It is a really hard decision whether to:

\- ship only the obfuscated class files

\- ship the non-obfuscated class files

\- or ship the whole source code with the product.

Being too open too early can be dangerous. Even big companies had problem from
being too open (see IBM PC), not to say about a small company which has no
traction.

------
daten
Just because you can't steal what really matters doesn't mean you don't
already have it. You could possibly take someone else's idea and execute it
better than they would have. What are the odds that the person who came up
with the great idea doesn't have the best motivation or resources to make it
successful?

------
willhf
A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the
world and rewrite all the rules. Which is why they have to steal it.

~~~
roqetman
Not if the idea sits in someone's head. The execution is extremely important.
I've had ideas that pre-dated devices like the ipad and iphone by 15 years,
but because I didn't do anything with those ideas, they were essentially
useless.

~~~
saint-loup
Now the question is, where is the limit beetween an idea and his execution. If
the idea is a vague thing like "a computer that fits in my pocket", then it's
just a dream. The most details you have about your idea, the most you're move
close its execution.

------
thinkcomp
Sorry Jason, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. Having been
in the real-life version of that movie for the past six years I have a pretty
good notion of what can and cannot be taken away by another, and it's a lot
more than what your post would lead people to believe.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
I understand where you're coming from since it's strikes a very personal chord
with you+facebook (it might only do that for a few other people in the world.)
The facebook examples in the post are meant to be small examples within the
context there. There's certainly more than meets the eye and I certainly don't
have any idea about the details/final arrangements between you and Mark. You
could replace the facebook example with other similar examples in business. If
you want to refute the arguments with your own personal first hand experiences
in the Facebook situation that would be useful.

~~~
thinkcomp
Jason,

Here's why I have an issue with your post. Intellectual property theft has a
number of effects that directly follow, all of which are serious. You lose:

\- Credibility and trust. There's always that hint of distrust when people
meet you because they have heard that you have made a claim on person X who
"stole" Y from you. They may not know anything about the details, but (they
worry) maybe you'll make that same claim again...on them! Worse, if they don't
know anything about it but only find out later through rumors, you will
probably never hear anything from that person again. Whether or not you are
right and whether or not you have evidence, you will always be referred to in
the media as the person "who claims that he" _____, not the person "who"
_____.

\- Credit. If something really was taken from you that you created, chances
are you aren't going to be recognized for it.

\- Money. If you decide to stand up for yourself it costs a lot of money,
typically in the six figures, but certainly no less than five. For the
Winklevosses in the movie of course it cost low eight figures (though I'm not
making a statement about their claims).

\- Health. Anyone who has fought any major legal proceeding knows that it's
pretty much guaranteed to have an effect on your health.

\- Legal rights. If the person who took the intellectual property later uses a
catalyst (like venture capital) to get ahead, you can be left not only minus
your work, but also minus legal protections associated with it that are now
attributed to the person who took it.

\- Social relationships. There are three separate ways social relationships
are impaired. If a large number of people become associated with the person
who took the intellectual property (likely once again with venture capital),
then you will automatically be isolated from those people no matter how decent
they themselves may be. Dating is harder (see credibility and trust). Hiring,
getting hired, or finding co-founders is harder, too (also see credibility and
trust).

\- Rebound potential. The only way to negate all of the above, which apply
whether you are right or wrong, and whether the facts are available or not, is
to become richer than the other person. Otherwise you are basically stuck.

As for the points in your article:

\- Long term vision. Irrelevant, it can be supplanted with a different one,
for better or for worse.

\- Analytical insights. Irrelevant.

\- Domain expertise. No, they can't steal it, but it can usually be replicated
to some degree.

\- Talent. No, they can't steal it, but it can definitely be replicated
through other hires.

\- Passion for great service? Sorry, but give me a break. What American
consumer expects great service these days and will immediately turn away from
a company due to a lack of it? Irrelevant.

\- Luck. As I've described above, luck is a lot harder to come by in this
position.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one go.

Aaron

~~~
lionhearted
Aaron! Hello again. We seem to cross paths on Hacker News once every six
months, with you writing about Zuckerberg sucking and me writing that I'd like
for you to forgo those feelings a tiny bit so you can be more successful in
life. We usually both make good points and nothing changes.

But - since last time I have learned a new term:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control>

"Locus of control in social psychology refers to the extent to which
individuals believe that they can control events that affect them.
Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and
has since become an important aspect of personality studies.

Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result
primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external
locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily
determine events."

Now, a theme of your postings is that your credit, money, health, social
relationships, and rebound potential have been hosed.

 _This may be true_ \- however, it might also be disempowering and not serving
your goals. How often do you think about this? I'm guessing - rather a lot
more than is optimal for you to thrive in life on your terms.

Anyone would be pissed in your situation. Anyone. But everyone successful gets
a significant betrayal or two along the way. I'd recommend you assert more
control over your life and shrug off the Facebook thing as much as possible.
Reliving it, commenting on it, writing about it in newspapers, writing a book
about it - does that really serve your goals? Really? Your most important
goals?

I said it before and I'll say it again - you're a talented dude. That talent
could almost certainly be deployed in better ways than anti-Facebooking, you
could be making yourself more wealthy, successful, happy, prosperous - and you
could be doing that for your family, friends, and loved ones. Something to
consider.

Best wishes as always. Rooting for you.

~~~
thinkcomp
Hi. Since you always seem to give me unsolicited advice, allow me to give you
some:

I've never met you and you clearly don't know me. Strongly consider the limits
of your actual knowledge concerning my actual position, versus what I choose
to share in a public forum in generic terms, before telling me what I should
do to change my actual life. Also consider that your rather personal
criticisms, however well-intentioned, may be construed by others to imply that
you actually do know me, when you don't.

I'm using my talent to build my company (<http://www.thinkcomputer.com>) if
that's not already clear. As I've also made clear before, I can do that and
comment on things about which I'm uniquely knowledgeable at the same time. And
if you don't like it, tough.

~~~
dirtbox
The thing about idea theft is all too often the person it was stolen from
wouldn't have been able to make it work in the first place. And here, it
seems, is a shining case in point.

