Developing a good idea is a relatively simple and inexpensive task. But making it a reality is a difficult and expensive process. Therefore, patenting ideas is a bad idea that stifles innovation. Even patents in general may not be beneficial or even counterproductive. After this declaration of intent, it can be difficult to understand that ideas are sometimes valuable and the application of strategies to defend them against uncreative competitors is justified.
Loïc Le Meur defended the null value of the ideas of entrepreneurs in a recent conference at the Instituto de Empresa (in turn based on an article he published in early 2004 in The Guardian, Minding your own business). Enrique Dans has published a good summary of the conference where he explains the reasons for the null value of the ideas:
An idea is worth nothing, others will have had it before, others will have it. Therefore, do not hide your ideas, instead share them as much as you can. Can someone steal your idea? Well then, run, be faster, build positive advantages not based on what you have, but on the direction and speed with which you go. Devoting yourself to the philosophy of the NDA and the patent does not make sense, in fact, in his facet of business angel, he does not read ideas when they ask him to sign an NDA first.
…
In an environment that is increasingly globalized and transparent…, dedicating yourself to treating people like a scoundrel or stealing from your clients is to risk any of them raising their voice, making themselves heard, and giving you a reputation that you surely don't want to have. In today's world, opting for the short term is decidedly an unsustainable strategy.
The same with regard to employees: Loïc commented on the importance of talking to people in a transparent, clear, confident way, of sharing actions, of creating that climate in which people work on something that they are really passionate about.
In today's economy, it's the people that matter, not the companies, not the cards, not the diplomas.
If we face a scenario, otherwise common in certain economic sectors and countries, of open and efficient markets, this proposal is correct. In an open and competitive world, there is, naturally, an abundance of ideas since human creativity has all the incentives (profitability, recognition, pleasure) to express itself.
In this scenario, most of the actors are entrepreneurs and all have, better or worse, ideas. All these ideas are capable of being developed if they have funding and demand, which become limiting factors, and therefore the true value lies in the ability to develop the project that arises from an idea and not in the idea itself.
But, and here come my criticisms, let us now place ourselves in a scenario of intervened markets. In this context, there is an artificial limitation of the ideas that can be developed, which will be those selected by the political authority in power or that are allowed by law (which can establish monopolies or oligopolies). The market plays a secondary or null role in the selection of ideas that will end up being turned into projects.
Therefore, the incentive for the entry of entrepreneurs with good ideas into the game is considerably reduced and, on the contrary, great opportunities arise for other actors who make up for their lack of ideas with their contacts or their dominant position (financially and / or legally). Therefore, an ecosystem of actors arises where there are a few, a few, entrepreneurs and many others adapted to the bureaucratic system.
Ideas become a rare commodity and there are many people interested (with resources and relationships) in capturing a good idea from others to turn it into a project. In this somewhat depressing scenario, the true entrepreneur needs to develop strategies to protect their ideas from the perversity of the system itself.
Unfortunately, especially in Europe, there are many economic areas where public intervention and regulations limit the ability of markets to create wealth. Economic theory is not enough in these cases, political science and sociology can be more useful to understand reality.
