 |
|
 |
|
 |
||||
|
||||||||
| But this view of creativity is simply wrong, and unhelpful in a corporate setting. Very little in this world is ever wholly “new” or the result of work carried out by a single person. Innovation is a team game, and one in which everyone has much to learn (and copy) from what is going on in the outside world. In his Open Business Models, Henry Chesbrough, a professor at the Haas School of Business in California, says that the old protective barriers set up by businesses around themselves have to be pulled down. We need to open up and lighten up12). “Shorter product life cycles and accelerating costs spell13) doom for the older, closed model of innovation,” Prof Chesbrough says. “Only by accessing more ideas, and by using these ideas in more new products and services, can organisations keep pace and achieve an economically viable model of innovation.” Collaborating profitably with Google, rather than insulting it, is likely to be a better strategic choice. Likewise, under its “connect and develop”programme, Procter and Gamble has licensed or acquired products from a range of competitors, bringing these products to market as P&G brands. The company has a network of “scouts14)”on the look-out for new ideas. We need to guard against the spooky15), wishful thinking that expects sudden eureka moments as the answer to our creative problems. Successful innovation usually emerges at the end of an extended period of steady and often undramatic experimentation. It is hard work. As James Woudhuysen, a professor at the UK’s De Montfort University, likes to say: “We’ve heard enough for one lifetime about hinking outside the box?”He goes on to ask: “When are chief executives going to ask for some more nside the box?thinking?” Innovation also requires an openness to concepts that are “not invented here”. To complete the Eliot quote on plagiarism: “Bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.” A bit like a good search engine and aggregator, in fact, old material is presented in a new and useful way. Shakespeare seemed to understand the slipperiness of “original content”. In Act 3 scene 2 of Hamlet there is a brief but telling exchange between Claudius and the tragic hero, when the king is unimpressed by his nephew’s insolent16) response. Claudius: “I have nothing with this answer, Hamlet; these words are not mine.” To which the noble prince replies: “No, nor mine now.” How about this for an alternative (and original) ending to Shakespeare’s most famous play: Hamlet returns to Wittenberg and trains to become an intellectual property lawyer. T·S·艾略特曾经做过如下评述：“不成熟的诗人模仿，成熟的诗人剽窃。”这可谓真知灼见，精辟形象，不过在处理知识产权纠纷时，可能就派不上多大用场了。 各家公司都在严加看守其资产。竞争的现实意味着，如果在专利权和版权问题上沾沾自喜可能是致命的。艺术家们可以拿剽窃这个问题开玩笑，商业领袖们则很少视之为笑谈。 如果你参加了上周在纽约召开的美国出版商协会年会，就会看到一位幽默感运用极其不当的企业高管。微软公司负责版权、商标和商业机密的副总顾问——这是多大的一个头衔啊——托马斯·鲁宾对与会代表说，谷歌立志成为全球信息和内容的主要来源，这个目标正使其行为在道德上令人生疑。 鲁宾先生把谷歌描述成一种自身不创造内容而靠他人劳动牟利的商业寄生虫。他颇为赞许地引用了美国出版商协会首席执行官帕特·施罗德的一番话：施罗德女士最近表示，谷歌有“一种很恶劣的商业模式——他们将免费得到你创造的所有东西，并且以此来卖广告”。鲁宾先生表示，这种做法“系统性地侵犯版权，使作者和出版商失去‘货币化’其作品的一条重要途经，由此破坏了人们的创作积极性”。 |
| 外语招生最新热贴: |
【责任编辑：yuloo 纠错】 |
|
阅读上一篇：谷歌是条寄生虫？ |
|
阅读下一篇：谷歌是条寄生虫？ |
|
|
| 【育路网版权与免责声明】 | |
| ① 凡本网注明稿件来源为"原创"的所有文字、图片和音视频稿件，版权均属本网所有。任何媒体、网站或个人转载、链接、转贴或以其他方式复制发表时必须注明"稿件来源：育路网"，违者本网将依法追究责任； | |
| ② 本网部分稿件来源于网络，任何单位或个人认为育路网发布的内容可能涉嫌侵犯其合法权益，应该及时向育路网书面反馈，并提供身份证明、权属证明及详细侵权情况证明，育路网在收到上述法律文件后，将会尽快移除被控侵权内容。 | |
大学英语---