Pretend that you are a single-person software shop and you design something that you think has value. For lack of better example say its patient record software at a hospital that does something "revolutionairy" (no I'm not developing for medical industry it has too many big players and its already Been Done(tm).)
Now you can take a year to fully develop the system on your own time and dime. You put a lot of soul and creativity into it and feel that you should be rewarded when you market it. But after you have a few sites using it (made a handful of money and the prospects are looking good for more rollouts) all of a sudden some big businesses see it and say "there is money in that, lets get something on it!".
They put a 6 man team on developing the same software to compete with yours. They've stolen any creative ideas you had and market them as their own. Two months later they've developed the same sort of system and because they are a big company they already have friendly business with the medical industry, already have them using 10 other products of theirs and have support contracts etc.
So the hospital say "gee whiz, why pay $40,000 for the independent's solution when these friends of ours will sell it to us for $30,000 and we already have positive relationship and track record". Hospitals all around start buying the big names solution and not yours. You effectively can't compete.
Now what if the software (patient record system) has to operate with other sites (hospitals) and medical record repositories (government ones). Say you design your system so that it won't operate with any other type of client somehow even if they reverse-engineer the system. Do you think it is right to make your system non-interoperable on purpose in this situation? By having the market adopt your solution first you will have critical mass if you get say 100 sites to use it by the time your competition has theirs ready. Any potential customer will say "hrm these 100 sites use the independent and that is the ONLY way I can communicate with them". They would risk the reason for the system in the first place (to share medical records between sites) just to save $10,000 so they would see it as a must and go with you.
We always scold big companies that do it but do you think its okay for an independent if its the only way they can protect their creative invention?
Patents don't matter. Intellectual property is a joke. If you patent your system do you realize how long it will take to have the patent approved (sure you can use patent pending as defense) but the big companies can just tie you up in court for years before you see anything out of it. And by then they've sold millions of dollars of the software and you won't get a cent. Sure you get the court to rule in your favour but by that time your software has failed because you've spent every day in court trying to go after them. The court may make the company kick a few bucks to you but you wont get what you "could have made" because that is all theoretical and they avoid that stuff.
So the law and patents won't help. And then what happens when the socialized healthcare system (Canada) comes back and says "Hey our friends at Big Company say that you won't let your software work with theirs. We can't afford your prices because we are in big debt and can't give more money to the healthcare field. You charge more than Big Company, the one that lines our pockets during campaign time (or some crap), so you know, we are forcing you to open up your software and allow the other companies to communicate with yours because you are a monopoly" or something similar which could easily happen.
Question is how can you even compete? Should you just outright sell your system after its done? That way you have no headaches of support, continued development and competition. (This of course would result in you making lots less money...you might only make 1/4 what you would have if you maintained the control)
How else can you compete?
Cliff notes: do you like brown spots on old lady hands?
Now you can take a year to fully develop the system on your own time and dime. You put a lot of soul and creativity into it and feel that you should be rewarded when you market it. But after you have a few sites using it (made a handful of money and the prospects are looking good for more rollouts) all of a sudden some big businesses see it and say "there is money in that, lets get something on it!".
They put a 6 man team on developing the same software to compete with yours. They've stolen any creative ideas you had and market them as their own. Two months later they've developed the same sort of system and because they are a big company they already have friendly business with the medical industry, already have them using 10 other products of theirs and have support contracts etc.
So the hospital say "gee whiz, why pay $40,000 for the independent's solution when these friends of ours will sell it to us for $30,000 and we already have positive relationship and track record". Hospitals all around start buying the big names solution and not yours. You effectively can't compete.
Now what if the software (patient record system) has to operate with other sites (hospitals) and medical record repositories (government ones). Say you design your system so that it won't operate with any other type of client somehow even if they reverse-engineer the system. Do you think it is right to make your system non-interoperable on purpose in this situation? By having the market adopt your solution first you will have critical mass if you get say 100 sites to use it by the time your competition has theirs ready. Any potential customer will say "hrm these 100 sites use the independent and that is the ONLY way I can communicate with them". They would risk the reason for the system in the first place (to share medical records between sites) just to save $10,000 so they would see it as a must and go with you.
We always scold big companies that do it but do you think its okay for an independent if its the only way they can protect their creative invention?
Patents don't matter. Intellectual property is a joke. If you patent your system do you realize how long it will take to have the patent approved (sure you can use patent pending as defense) but the big companies can just tie you up in court for years before you see anything out of it. And by then they've sold millions of dollars of the software and you won't get a cent. Sure you get the court to rule in your favour but by that time your software has failed because you've spent every day in court trying to go after them. The court may make the company kick a few bucks to you but you wont get what you "could have made" because that is all theoretical and they avoid that stuff.
So the law and patents won't help. And then what happens when the socialized healthcare system (Canada) comes back and says "Hey our friends at Big Company say that you won't let your software work with theirs. We can't afford your prices because we are in big debt and can't give more money to the healthcare field. You charge more than Big Company, the one that lines our pockets during campaign time (or some crap), so you know, we are forcing you to open up your software and allow the other companies to communicate with yours because you are a monopoly" or something similar which could easily happen.
Question is how can you even compete? Should you just outright sell your system after its done? That way you have no headaches of support, continued development and competition. (This of course would result in you making lots less money...you might only make 1/4 what you would have if you maintained the control)
How else can you compete?
Cliff notes: do you like brown spots on old lady hands?
Surely it would be more favourable to avoid legal problems.
Facebook
Twitter