An Alternative to the American way of Innovation | Andrew 'bunnie' Huang | TEDxPickeringStreet

Intellectual property laws of today are largely influenced by regulations created more than a hundred years ago in Europe. But there is one country in the world where IP is handled in a radically different manner as a result of the internet age: China. What can we learn from China in this age of innovation? This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx

[@greenworld7085]

Edward Snowden with Joe Rogan suggested me here...

[@bones23jones]

"Echo chamber of improvement" 👍

[@DRSElectronic]

Very good book , « the hardware hacker »

[@ciemo87]

"A mind without peer" I read "The hardware hacker" twice and enjoyed it to the extreme 🎩🎩🎩

[@alfiz9943]

lecture about open source

[@banban8481]

The comments section can't understand this man, probably because some of them from the west. Copying is not bad, we copy other people since we're a baby. Some people even talked about incentive to innovate, and innovation will happen naturally when you're copying. Because even though you copy, you will like to change things. Maybe it's a small thing, maybe it's a big thing. But these changes will create a new thing. It's the same like in evolution, we copy our gene but there will be a mutation. Well this concept maybe hard for a westerner, that's why technology in Asia progress rapidly and the west is left behind.

[@CallSaul489]

Copying can be stealing. Maybe you don’t understand this. As far as everyone can tell, China is still a copy cat, an extreme environment pollution creator and a human rights atrocity.

[@banban8481]

@@CallSaul489 Read your own comment but slowly.

[@CallSaul489]

@@banban8481 Ok I did. Now admit there is no moral standard in Chinese culture.

[@MarkKrebs]

Worse for the individual, better for society? Maybe we need a middle road with shorter time period of protection.

[@DaveE99]

It’s only worse for individual if you assume that individual has no social relational and sense of peace needs. But if you see the individual as in opposition to the collective then you might think it’s worse for the individual.

[@montanawildhack2760]

Ed sent me

[@ManuelBTC21]

Copying is not theft. Stealing a thing leaves one less left, copying it makes one thing more, that's what copying's for. End copyright, end the patent system.

[@CallSaul489]

Clearly you’ve not invented anything or worked to create something truly innovative. If you did then you would appreciate the time limited protection and financial rewards for innovation and sacrifice. Patents actually create more innovation and force more creative solutions, not less.

[@DaveE99]

@@CallSaul489 on one had I get it it helps justify investment into it, on another they are used to create large power basses that then create unnatural competative power bases that then rule over our lives and power tends to build it self up. The other thing is companies are not incentivized to actually look at externalities, in fact the legal incentives of a corporation for it to consider externalities and 1st 2nd 3rd 4th degreee level of secondary effects and externalities on bio/psycho/social. I suggest looking up yellow teaming, Daniel schmactenberger and multi-polar traps. From a systems thinking perspective it’s amazing how little bit of information we need to be able to accuretly predict the societal ills that occur in our lives based on the systems we created. Thus idea that people in business “didn’t know” is just motivated reasoning based on market fundamentalism ideology. Ad to admit they knew would be suercide to the corporate profit motive and share holder profits and then you got hostile takeovers if you don’t pursue it any way (though you may be able to make it clear that you did know publicly some how to prevent ignoring responsibility. On top of it, not all patents are created equal and yet corporations have the incentive to manipulate patent law to protect their power base as long as possible. The free trade agreements that spread these rules around also prevent people in other countries from experimenting with different rules on thus stuff. It also incentivizes corporations to rule over other people and is part of the financilization of life too. I have not seen domestic policy or corporate policy that ever helps people build a level of autonomy in their lives, it’s always bow down and let us extract as much as possible. That is both foreign and domestic policy. Plus a lot of the problems the market fixes the market also creates.

[@fkzgfk]

The only problem with this is that you can't really innovate by producing random kitty-cat phones.

[@felixxdenolo6793]

Artificial Intelligence it’s also hard to innovate if someone is just going to steal your improvement or invention

[@tekvax01]

I REALLY hate those poppy, plosive, distorted, horrid sounding "over-the-head" countryman microphones! The audio is almost unlistenable! Too bad, because Andrew Huang is an amazingly talented speaker and hardware designer!

[@LanceDFX]

Interesting perspective. But it really left me with 2 questions or concerns. 1. you kinda glossed over R&D and the cost. It's quite expensive. So if there is no reward (monetary or whatever) for innovation, then there is no need to spend on R&D. Copying kills this. And 2. When you mentioned apple spent money on a design patent for the home button, it comes across as you think that is silly. Whether you like apple or not, being a design driven company (like AirBNB, Nike, Amazon, etc.) has served them well. And if this feature is copied, why would apple spend the money to test designs to make them easy to use. Overall, I do not entirely agree with your talk, but I did find it interesting.

[@teamtoken]

You point out a lot of flaws with Andrew Huang’s argument and I agree entirely. It take’s several engineers/scientists/Innovators to come up with new and good designs, particularly for complex hardware products, and nobody does R&D for free. His take on the “Chinese way” of doing things is not real innovation, it’s taking already well developed bits from here and there and packaging it into something else, with maybe some small incremental improvements along the way. It’s creative at it’s best and blatant copying at it’s worst. I admire his enthusiasm but I don’t share his specific views on it.

[@DaveE99]

I don’t buy this and this is why: first off you need to truly understand that taxes don’t pay the federal budget. That’s not how that process even works. It’s a metaphor based on being a user of a sovereign currency rather than being the owner of the printing oresss for the sovereign currency and the rule of law. Most research actually occurs at the level of the goverment any way, especially basic and above. The only reason we can’t just use goverment to fund a lot of the same activity is due to uncertainty management and innovation thinking process design thinking. In many ways we could design a system that prioritizes the type of cognition that leads to good developments and designs, and incentivize it differently. You can have a decentralized competative innovation system that works via different incentives structure. A lot of the same system dynamics can be used and improved.

[@mcgarage1000]

His obsession is about the upside the plastic manufacturers have, by closing the knowledge gap on the pcb/electronics side, so they can sell more plastic and are not dependent on one large contract.

[@DaveE99]

Closing knowledge gap you can scale more , makes sense

[@jasonrichards9575]

I certainly agree with what he is saying; but I believe the American way lends itself to developing better premium products.

[@bigjim10235]

Jason Strength in numbers. Population is power. The American way isn't the best in the world

[@CallSaul489]

@@bigjim10235 Yeah it’s better to be nothing in China. Your life nor your whole family tree doesn’t matter. Meanwhile you’re enjoying the fruits of the Western moral and economic 🤣

[@DaveE99]

The problem is the system also prevents types of innovation.

[@DaveE99]

Plus products are not made in a vaccum. Great products that don’t improve the 2nd 3rd 4th order effects in bio/psycho/social, are not really a true improvment

[@CallSaul489]

Equally idealistic and short sighted

[@felixxdenolo6793]

This is so funny why would you invest time and money so someone can just copy you and lose out. That’s like a farmer planting seeds and watering plants and letting someone take his crop for free.

[@afroyed3295]

what so funny how you totally missed the point of the video and also probably didn't finish the whole talk

[@ryanscott6600]

That's not what it's like.... wtf lol

[@DaveE99]

Gardeners do it all the time

[@DaveE99]

The farmer idea dosent make sense given permaculture and regenerative agriculture practices.

[@DaveE99]

Something to realize too, historically economies ran off of relational value. Not financial alienation. You often valued something because of the effort and work a close relationship put into it. The system for motivation is in human culture neuro social code, we just incentivize war clans, it’s what our culture is based on. And war clans may be better at scaling violence but they are not inherently better at improving culture. If on your death bed you want to reflect on the good products you had in your life. Please do so, if on your death bed you want to reflect on the process and relationships and adventures and struggles you went through with them along the way, then maybe reflect a bit