Transcript: Interview with the authors of The Knockoff Economy
This is a full transcript of an interview with the authors of The Knockoff Economy
By Kim Yoo-chul
Q: Why did you write this book
― We wrote the book as a response to the conventional wisdom about the relationship between creativity and copying. Most people simply assume that copying kills creativity – why would someone spend their time and money creating or inventing if others are simply free to copy? And this simple belief – copying kills creativity – is the basis of our intellectual property laws. IP laws exist to stop, or at least to limit, copying.
In our view, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Or, at least, it’s far too simple. We see important creative industries in which copying and creativity seem to get along quite nicely. And even instances where copying seems to lead to more creativity, not less. We wrote this book so that people could get a sense of the true relationship between copying and creativity, which is a lot more friendly than most people believe at first.
Q: What is the book about
― In the book we look at a group of industries – fashion, food, stand-up comedy, financial services, open source software, typography, databases, American football, and others – where we see a lot of copying, and also a lot of creativity. The book examines each of these industries, tells the story of how they work, and how they mix copying and creativity.
Q Knock-off economy boosts innovation and fosters stronger competition? If yes, Samsung Electronics is the right business model that effectively matches up with your view?
― Samsung is a great example of what we refer to in the book as innovation through “tweaking”. Some of Samsung’s most popular smartphones, for example, copied but then arguably improved upon the design of Apple’s iPhones. Of course, Samsung ran into some trouble for doing this. We’re thinking most notably on the billion-dollar patent verdict in U.S. court. We think that verdict got it mostly wrong. We don’t think Apple – or anyone else – should own the rectangular shape or a phone or tablet, and we think the patents that cover those shapes should never have been granted in the first place. Some of the other Apple patents in that litigation seem to us similarly weak.
Q: Samsung is talking about innovation, although experts and analysts doubt whether Samsung is a true innovation that has the capability to produce devices that haven’t been existed before. If copying is acceptable for innovation, what are Samsung’s next targets?
― We don’t have any inside information about Samsung’s business plans, but we’d note that their practice of closely imitating Apple’s phones and tweaking them has been very lucrative.
Q: Apple was an active copier? Please tell us
― Like many great companies, Apple adapted ideas and innovations and improved upon them. Steve Jobs famously visited the Xerox-Parc research facility, saw a very crude mouse and graphic computer screen, and reworked that into a better product that truly resonated with consumers. Refining and improving requires some degree of copying, and we emphasize in The Knockoff Economy that there is nothing unusual about this—true innovation is often incremental.
Q: As you know, there are heated debates about the availability of IP laws. Some say IP laws hurts appetites for innovation therefore the laws need to be changed. But others say IP rights should be defended. Please tell us how can we approach IP laws and related issues?
― We believe that IP rights are essential in a contemporary economy. But, it is also essential that they be properly calibrated and balanced. And in some industries, IP rights are not really necessary at all. For example, we discuss the fashion industry at length in the Knockoff Economy. In the US, there is no protection for fashion designs, and so firms like Forever 21 (begun by Korean immigrants to LA) have been very successful knocking off others’ designs. But what is really interesting is that all this copying has not killed creativity in the apparel industry. Quite the opposite—the industry thrives thanks to copying, because it is copying that creates trends and it is trends that sell fashion. The same is true for cuisine. We discuss the famous “Korean taco” created in LA by the Kogi Truck team. Like all inventive dishes, it cannot be copyrighted and so anyone else can copy it. Here too, innovation thrives. So while some industries may need strong IP rights, others do not, and the key thing is understand the difference so that IP rights serve our primary goal—promoting innovation.
Q: What do you think Samsung-Apple patent fight and what they will be?
― Apple and Samsung are two world class firms that have a complicated and even symbiotic relationship—Samsung makes components for Apple even as the two fight in courtrooms around the world. We wouldn’t try to predict the future of that relationship!
Q: So, the message is copying should be understood..then, what will next?
― Copying has both destructive and productive elements. Our book stresses that copying is too often made into a villain. Many industries — from cuisine to apparel to fonts to software ― survive and even thrive in the face of extensive copying.