instead nyc, imho, is either a place to list on the life or work resume of people (“when i was X i lived in nyc for X years”), or to take over and destroy competition to prove (mostly to oneself) one’s mastery of whatever field one works in.

actually, i appreciate this post, btw.

if a society values quick fixes and short term “solutions” to “problems” due to systemic factors, then it won’t be too surprising that innovation would decline.

i wrote a piece recently about an example of u.s. decline in creativity when examining electronic dance music’s decline here, as innovations and technology use has risen in europe. i believe i posted this here months ago, focused on the issue of creativity in the united states and how it clearly is in decline and worsening as a result of high cost of living in its so-called most “creative” cities, which cater primarily to established creative types and not developing ones who tend to have the most unique ideas and approaches.

if the emphasis is mostly on “the bottom line,” then creativity can easily be stifled, because while the concept of “creativity” may be utilized to solve problems a business faces, on the other hand a powerful institution will also be VERY upset or not accepting, if a “creative” idea contradicts the status quo of dominant industry, of which the U.S. has had a major claim to (like say GM rejecting “green” technology).

in a so-called “creative” city like new york, the cost of living is so high that many businesses cannot “afford” to take risks on new ideas or creative workers with such ideas/work that have not “proven” successful…they are “too big to fail” (like say why hollywood films seem to have been increasingly ridiculed as even more so market based “consumable entertainment” versus unique art that can be “entertaining” and even enlightening), so the opportunities disappear.

therefore it is little wonder why the u.s. is and will continue at the current rate to fall behind other nations without such significant obstacles in the area of creativity.

Software patents are the most egregious example, in my opinion. I have two software patents that I consider to be lame ideas, but my employer nevertheless invested a lot of time and legal fees in getting them patented, presumably to add to its arsenal.

The patent system is dysfunctional, and academic research that relies on counting patents is extremely dubious.

http://www.nesta.org.uk/hidden-innovation-report/

However we do need to keep measuring patents. We have historic data and it is an accepted measure of innovation activity.

From the discussions on this blog this week, it seems a challenge of late has been obtaining funding (capital) to do something innovative with a new invention — like mass produce it as a consumer item.

Think about Research in Motion and the Blackberry. They had to settle a lawsuit with someone who apparently patented the concept of a tiny keyboard on a cel-phone, but who never actually produced the product. RIM was the innovator (and arguably the inventor as well since I don’t think they borrowed anything from the unknown patent holder).

Is there any way to track how many patents become viable innovations?

Maybe that number has declined and many people and corporations are securing patents to block competitors or to “get rich quick” off others’ efforts (as I would argue happened in the case of the Blackberry controversy).