Regarding TiVo, I wasn’t thinking of ReplayTV (who went bankrupt, after all) but rather of all the “knockoff” PVRs that cable companies have been marketing to their customers. EchoStar is the most prominent example:

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/08/echostar_v_tivo.html

I’m not sure what to make of this case – I usually default against supporting patent injunctions, but TiVo is definitely a much more sympathetic organization than EchoStar…

Of the things you write about Tim (peer production, decentralized development), those would be process innovations.

Product innovations can include Blackberries, extra flight golf balls, desktop apps, etc.

So I’d be interested in an example of a not-so-difficult-to-replicate innovation. I’m sure they exist, but I’m having trouble thinking of one.

Yet, Tim’s strategy in this post is that by including Masneck’s view of innovation, he maintains our attention to this proposed inherent efficiency of small firms and diverts us from thinking too much about actual products.

Of course, what happens when you only see innovation in the process of innovation, where you assign small firms to have inherent advantage: small firms are thereby more innovative.

In other words, Tim used Masneck to draw a big circle around himself.

Tim — I don’t think this really tells us much. Of course its often difficult. But then again, I’d think its often easy. For cases where its difficult (for maps I have no idea), the IP debate isn’t very relevant, since legal protections aren’t as critical. But that doesn’t help someone who has a not-so-difficult-to-replicate innovation. For them, IP protection is still critical.

it’s often very difficult to replicate innovation from the top down. The software development process at big companies tends to get slowed down by bureaucracy, and as a result it’s slow and expensive.

You argue that MS and everyone else could have copied Google’s maps, but that they spent tons trying to be original, and that somehow this is a general reflection on small vs big firms in their innovating ability. But first you should ask how much of a priority are maps to the varous companies cited. What do they spell for bottom line profits. If a product is really important to a company, its going to focus more on it, and make it that development more efficient, right? With MS, they’re probably working on more than just a map, also peripheral applications to go along with. It might be easier to study Google’s technology, but in terms of maintaining interop between their products, MS would build a map inside the company.

even a small company with no IP at all will have substantial bargaining power over a large company facing a decision about whether to build or buy a particular bit of technology.

You take a leap here. Even if big firms are hierarchical, bureaucratic, slow and waste money, do they lose any real advantage to smaller firms. But I’ll roll along. Basically, IP becomes moot to your argument though. Take IP out of the equation, and your view doesn’t really change. What you are saying is simply that smaller firms will be nimbler.

I believe Masneck’s argument is that innovation occurs as BOTH destinations and processes. With the Internet, there’s a lot of focus on how it improves distribution and collaboration, so there we’re talking about process innovation. Personally, I consider FOSS an innovative process.