My friend Brad Feld (probably in the top 5 smartest business guys in Colorado [note: I don't claim to even make the top 100 <g>]) posted the 2nd and 3rd installments of "Empirical Evidence of Why Software Patents Are Bad (or Good)" last month. The series was based upon a late night musing I had on how I found the emotional commenting on the existence of software patents something that could be tested with a relatively straightforward survey/interview methodology.
There are things that a blog is good for (in my experience short commentary designed for skimming/discovery, awareness raising on an issue or pimping your porfolio investments) and things that a blog isn't good for. I waited a few weeks before posting anything to my blog, but based on the comments to Brad's postings, I must admit to being surprised at how superficial blogs may in fact be.
Not a single comment on the blog responded to the testing methodology or the overall assumption set that led to the testing. There were either emotional comments like "software patents are like nuclear weapons -- gotta have them" or something similar. And then there were comments about whether the initial assumption set was nonsense (albeit without a countervailing set of "policy motivations for why patents exist"). Basically the same rhetoric we've heard for years. But I humbly admit to being surprised by the lack of intellectual commitment to responding to the musings.
I'm not sure what surprised me more -- that digital communication lacks reflection and deep engagement, or that one of the top bloggers in the digital realm who's a wickedly smart guy couldn't get anyone to care enough to comment on a testing methodology that would answer a question that annoys many very smart, very well capitalized, strong opinion people. Are they afraid of what they'll find? Or are they just lazy?
Ah, well, don't mean to whine. Just had to get that off my chest. Wish I could find someone to tell me that (a) the idea is flawed for reasons X, Y and Z or (b) the idea is rock-solid and we're going to fund it because in the grand scheme of things, it's a low-cost data gathering exercise that we think is critical to future policy...
It reminds me of how in our business at EIP there are a surprising number of "managers and directors" in new product development at BigCos that would much rather listen to themselves spout their opinions than conduct a data-based experiment that would answer a question. People that "know" what is needed (or more likely not needed) by consumers or by retailers or by their very own organization vs. asking some questions and getting representative, projectable data...
I guess I was just dreaming again to think that things happen automagically. Someone has to drive them. Duh...
Is the big business breakthrough in the non-reflective, opinionated, superficial world of the digital 21st century that those with the data win against those with the opinion? Can it be that in today's world that those that possess the will to create knowledge are the future wealth creators? Are those that actually use the tools at hand to create knowledge, rather than just sit and process their email inbox, surf the web and consume data, the rare ones?
Easier than ever to create knowledge, yet harder than ever to get someone to do it.... How ironic is that?
Comments