I've just read @MattwRidley's interesting new book.
Here are my thoughts....

#innovation #engineering #patents #intellectualproperty @harperbooks @HarperCollins
1/18

The key message of 'How Innovation Works' is this:
Innovation and inventing is being stifled by bureaucracy, patents, and rent-seeking.

As an R&D engineer and computer scientist, these are problems that I have experienced directly, so I hope this book impacts govt policy.

2/18

The book's core claims are convincing:

- Turning ideas into products is more important than the initial act of invention.
- Inventors overestimate their own value, and the patent system gives them a monopoly in tech that they may not be willing or able to commercialise.

3/18

- Identical inventions are often invented by independent teams, so some inventions must be inevitable.

But then Ridley starts confusing inventions with the process of inventing, and pushes it too far - casting doubt on the existence of "Eureka moments" and heroic inventors

4/18

Anyone who has worked in a creative role knows that inventive "Eureka moments" do occur.

Sure, the invention of "the aeroplane" was inevitable, but all of the ingenious mechanisms that make an aeroplane possible had to be created or synthesised in someone's mind.

5/18

Even if no single person invented what is vaguely referred to as "the computer", you still need individual acts of creative thinking to invent specific non-obvious new components, algorithms, and concepts - such as the Turing machine, transistor, or mouse.
#SoritesParadox

6/18

Ridley is particularly unwise to imply that the extraordinary creative leaps performed by people like Issac Newton - the most important English intellect of all time - is some kind of heroic "myth" (p.166).

7/18

Newton did his most significant work in almost total isolation - not only establishing new scientific principles, but also developing new scientific methods, philosophy, instruments, mathematics, engineering tools, and optical inventions.

I'd call that "heroic".

8/18

Sadly, such denials of individual human agency are common among those wishing to control the creative arts - from economists to AI experts.
But the fact remains that inventors do exist - you can even tour the Silicon Valley garages where inventive inspiration has struck.

9/18

Ridley's book is a fine riposte to the @MazzucatoM theory that "entrepreneurial" state bureaucracies invented the iPhone.... though I was hoping he would point out that the inevitability of inventions means that the State need not fund R&D - inventions will pop up anyway.

10/18

Despite @MattwRidley and @MazzucatoM being poles apart politically, they have a great deal in common. Like me, they are both worried about a rentier economy stifling innovation.

But both of their world views seem to be a little joyless and depressingly inhumane:

11/18

. @MazzucatoM thinks that the individual creator is not important - it's the State that matters. (She once told @Worstall that I was just a product of the State.)

@MattwRidley also dismisses the significance of the individual - he thinks it's the market that matters.

12/18

But if the book has a major flaw, it is this:

Much of Ridley's innovation evidence originates in areas of physics, engineering, and computer science - fields in which he has little direct expertise or experience. This lack of deep knowledge shows up in parts of the book.

13/18

For example, Ridley naively says that no one saw the importance of social media and search engines.

I was a PhD at @uclcs in the mid-90s. Search engines and groupware were hot. I was shown Google when it was new - it was obviously a significant invention in its own right.

14/18

Ridley's book would have benefitted from some input from practitioners and people closer to the action - such as engineers and computer scientists - to complement the quotes from secondary sources and eminent pundits like @WalterIsaacson, @Kevin2Kelly and @TimHarford.

15/18

One more thing...
The book has sections on AI, and on patents. I was surprised that it didn't link these threads, or explore how AI is increasingly being used to stifle innovation - through the automation and expansion of patent trolling and patent thicket building.

16/18

Conclusion
For a long time, ever since I worked in innovation research at @CambridgeJBS, I've had an aversion to woolly terms like "innovation". Despite this, I enjoyed Matt's book; there are aspects I disagree with, but it nails one or two important and non-obvious ideas.

17/18

But if I wrote a book about inventing, I would want to celebrate heroic eccentric inventors, past and present.



18/18