

When does inspiration become theft of the idea? - dctoedt
http://betsylerner.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/she-walked-just-like-you/

======
kristofferR
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...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/16/war-zynga-sues-the-hell-out-of-
brazilian-clone-vostu/)

Borderline (compared to Halo): [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/n-o-v-a-2-near-
orbit-vanguard...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/n-o-v-a-2-near-orbit-
vanguard/id400901088?mt=8)

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

~~~
Ruudjah
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.

~~~
kristofferR
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.

~~~
bediger
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.

~~~
kristofferR
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.

