> A stray collection of thoughts
Missing in action is the counter-argument.
If as a 'designer' one's been relegated to rearranging buttons on a
page, this won't be of any consequence, but if one's directly involved
in *system* design in a strategic context, then playing ostrich is no
help.
Innovation requires *challenging* established practices, not just in
technology but also in marketing, XP design, pricing, distribution,
etc. Usually in combination. IP issues are part and parcel of this
combination and must be addressed as opposed to avoided.
Playing ostrich is no guarantee that one won't be sued. At the end of
the day, as a designer, one has to either design around a patent or
against it, either case requiring knowledge of it. Many companies
actually build products and platforms by successfully challenging
existing patents, invalidating them, reducing their reach and,
sometimes, licensing them.
Unless one's involved in specific cases of reverse engineering,
avoidance of patent knowledge is really not very smart. Innovative
products are not designed by starting with a focus on patent knowledge
avoidance.
--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list .......
discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................
http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribeList Guidelines ............
http://www.ixda.org/guidelinesList Help ..................
http://www.ixda.org/help
