> A stray collection of thoughts Missing in action is the counter-argument.
If as a 'designer' one's been relegated to rearranging buttons on a page, this won't be of any consequence, but if one's directly involved in *system* design in a strategic context, then playing ostrich is no help. Innovation requires *challenging* established practices, not just in technology but also in marketing, XP design, pricing, distribution, etc. Usually in combination. IP issues are part and parcel of this combination and must be addressed as opposed to avoided. Playing ostrich is no guarantee that one won't be sued. At the end of the day, as a designer, one has to either design around a patent or against it, either case requiring knowledge of it. Many companies actually build products and platforms by successfully challenging existing patents, invalidating them, reducing their reach and, sometimes, licensing them. Unless one's involved in specific cases of reverse engineering, avoidance of patent knowledge is really not very smart. Innovative products are not designed by starting with a focus on patent knowledge avoidance. -- Kontra http://counternotions.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
