Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless. • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#11

Post by davidw » Thu, May 24, 2007, 7:16 AM UTC

MobileDigit wrote: post #10

SwellJoe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would have remained worthless. In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have value. Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept…

If something is worthless because people will not give you money for it ("make something people want"), then there is nothing inherent in ideas that makes them worthless. It is simply the fact that most people would not pay you for ideas that make them generally not a profitable endeavor.

Precisely - the difference is between "worthless", which we instinctively know isn't true, and "won't pay money for":

http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless

In short: for practical purposes, PG is right, but wrong in his theory.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#12

Post by jkush » Thu, May 24, 2007, 9:13 AM UTC

juwo wrote: post #9

SwellJoe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would have remained worthless. In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have value. Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept…

from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way" must come along." this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it was worthless. Other…

Look Juwo, you're still playing with words. It's not so much that an idea is WORTHLESS (where it doesn't have any value) as it's that an idea doesn't really count for anything UNTIL it's been brought out into the real world. For all intents and purposes, Einstein's ideas were worthless until he put them down on paper.

Let me phrase this another way: what if Einstein had never written The Theory of Relativity? Would his ideas still be worth anything just sitting there in his brain?

Also, PG never wrote that ideas were "worthless". He wrote that people "overvalue ideas". This is what I mean when I say you're playing with words. Changing "overvalue ideas" to worthless frames it very differently and isn't very precise.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#13

Post by MobileDigit » Thu, May 24, 2007, 11:12 AM UTC

davidw wrote: post #11

MobileDigit wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something is worthless because people will not give you money for it ("make something people want"), then there is nothing inherent in ideas that makes them worthless. It is simply the fact that most people would not pay you for ideas that make them generally not a profitable endeavor.

Precisely - the difference is between "worthless", which we instinctively know isn't true, and "won't pay money for": http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless In short: for practical purposes, PG is right, but wrong in his theory.

"How would a market for ideas work, in any case? How could you prevent someone from listening to a bunch of ideas and just walking away with the ones they like?" -- your blog post

Secrecy and contracts?

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#14

Post by davidw » Thu, May 24, 2007, 11:37 AM UTC

MobileDigit wrote: post #13

davidw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely - the difference is between "worthless", which we instinctively know isn't true, and "won't pay money for": http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless In short: for practical purposes, PG is right, but wrong in his theory.

"How would a market for ideas work, in any case? How could you prevent someone from listening to a bunch of ideas and just walking away with the ones they like?" -- your blog post Secrecy and contracts?

Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth. Execution is very important, and in an ideas market, there would probably also be a lot of crappy ones. So, you have to sign a bunch of NDA like contracts, risk being sued if you ever develop anything like the things you may have seen, and probably also have to wade through a lot of junk.

While it might be sort of doable, it's probably not worth it until we have a magic pill that lets you forget the last 5 minutes of your life completely and totally.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#15

Post by MobileDigit » Thu, May 24, 2007, 11:59 AM UTC

davidw wrote: post #14

MobileDigit wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How would a market for ideas work, in any case? How could you prevent someone from listening to a bunch of ideas and just walking away with the ones they like?" -- your blog post Secrecy and contracts?

Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth. Execution is very important, and in an ideas market, there would probably also be a lot of crappy ones. So, you have to sign a bunch of NDA like contracts, risk being sued if you ever develop anything like the things you may have seen, and probably also have to wade through a lot of junk. While it might be sort of doable, it's probably not wort…

"Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth."

These costs could surely be lowered if there was demand for ideas in the first place.

I think this is more evidence that ideas by themselves are generally worthless.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#16

Post by dpapathanasiou » Thu, May 24, 2007, 12:01 PM UTC

juwo wrote: post #9

SwellJoe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would have remained worthless. In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have value. Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept…

from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way" must come along." this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it was worthless. Other…

No one executed the theory of relativity.

This debate is silly.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#17

Post by davidw » Thu, May 24, 2007, 12:14 PM UTC

MobileDigit wrote: post #15

davidw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth. Execution is very important, and in an ideas market, there would probably also be a lot of crappy ones. So, you have to sign a bunch of NDA like contracts, risk being sued if you ever develop anything like the things you may have seen, and probably also have to wade through a lot of junk. While it might be sort of doable, it's probably not wort…

"Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth." These costs could surely be lowered if there was demand for ideas in the first place. I think this is more evidence that ideas by themselves are generally worthless.

It's evidence that the value of ideas, on aggregate, is low (which makes sense), but doesn't point to a value of 0, just lower than the transaction costs inherent in the attempt to create a market for a more or less non excludable good. Markets do best when there is sufficient information, and so a market based around secrecy and potential lawsuits isn't going to be a very good one. Look at software patents, for instance... it's not a very nice or healthy market.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#18

Post by jkush » Thu, May 24, 2007, 12:47 PM UTC

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #16

juwo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way" must come along." this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it was worthless. Other…

No one executed the theory of relativity. This debate is silly.

No, but what's important is that the idea was physically incarnated in the form of writing. The act of writing is what counts.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#19

Post by juwo » Thu, May 24, 2007, 2:12 PM UTC

jkush wrote: post #18

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one executed the theory of relativity. This debate is silly.

No, but what's important is that the idea was physically incarnated in the form of writing. The act of writing is what counts.

1) the theory of relativity was executed by people who used that idea to develop nuclear weapons, satellites, GPS systems, semiconductor electronics etc.

Here are two 'proofs':

2) According to the patent office, if you can write down in sufficient detail your idea so that "a person of reasonable skill in the trade" can implement it, then you can patent it. (assuming other conditions like non-obviousness etc apply). Even if someone patents before you, you can still patent it (if you wrote it down with proof of date) and claim royalties. (example, the laser).

3) Have you read about the numerous lawsuits in the entertainment world about ideas for a TV show or book being stolen and executed? There are no prototypes to steal - just ideas, but they carry weight in court.

Re: Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless.

#20

Post by juwo » Thu, May 24, 2007, 2:13 PM UTC

MobileDigit wrote: post #13

davidw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely - the difference is between "worthless", which we instinctively know isn't true, and "won't pay money for": http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless In short: for practical purposes, PG is right, but wrong in his theory.

"How would a market for ideas work, in any case? How could you prevent someone from listening to a bunch of ideas and just walking away with the ones they like?" -- your blog post Secrecy and contracts?

do a google search on "patent trolls"