James Dyson Quotes

Americans have been selling this view around the world: that progress comes from perfect protection of intellectual property.

Intellectual property is an important legal and cultural issue. Society as a whole has complex issues to face here: private ownership vs. open source, and so on.

IBM isn't investing billions of dollars every year into research and development - and winning more patents than our top 10 competitors combined for more than a decade - as an academic exercise. But research is now being driven much more by what people need rather than just by what is possible.

My company invents all kinds of new technology in lots of different areas. And we do that for a couple of reasons. We invent for fun - invention is a lot of fun to do - and we also invent for profit. The two are related because the profit actually takes long enough that if it isn't fun, you wouldn't have the time to do it.

I am a strong believer that intellectual property rights need to be protected.

Patents have not been a positive force in stimulating innovation at Cisco. Competition has been the motivator; bringing new products to market in a timely manner is critical. Everything we have done to create new products would have been done even if we could not obtain patents

What's important for all of us as chip companies is to keep the innovation going: putting out new products, figuring out how we connect these complex systems.

Imagine the disincentive to software development if after months of work another company could come along and copy your work and market it under its own name...without legal restraints to such copying, companies like Apple could not afford to advance the state of the art.

The lifeblood of our business is that R&D spend. There's nothing that flows through a pipe or down a wire or anything else. We have to continuously create new innovation that lets people do something they didn't think they could do the day before.

Intellectual-property rules are clearly necessary to spur innovation: if every invention could be stolen, or every new drug immediately copied, few people would invest in innovation. But too much protection can strangle competition and can limit what economists call 'incremental innovation' - innovations that build, in some way, on others.

If you don't invest in basic research at some stage you start losing the basis of applied research.

The biggest challenge is that when people look at low price point products, they essentially invest less money in development, innovation, and new technology. And in order to innovate at a lower price point, and make sustainability attainable to the masses, you have to invest more. But that's counterintuitive for a lot of businesses.

As the new endogenous growth theory suggests, TFP growth is closely related to accumulation of the intangible capitals, such as human capital and research and development.

People would like better batteries but they are wary of making investments. What is required is both a technology push and a market pull.

To disclose too much of one's inventions and achievements is one and the same thing as to give up the fruit of one's ingenuity.

If you have a business idea that's extremely easy to copy, that can often become something of a challenge or problem.

History has repeatedly shown that when a new method or material becomes available, new uses for it arise.

While American intellectual property deserves protection, that protection must be won and defended in a manner that does not stifle innovation, erode due process under the law, and weaken the protection of political and civil rights on the Internet.

If you look at where innovation - defined as ideas, not as commercial product - tends to live, the university system is remarkably innovative.

Postwar U.S. was the world's leader in science and technology. The investment in science research was staggering.

We are not concerned about innovation shifting from the U.S. I still believe that the U.S. still has capabilities for innovation.

We're on the path of creating monopoly business practices out of copyright law.

The British judiciary needs to support intellectual property.

People equate patents with secrecy, that secrecy is what patents were designed to overcome. That's why the formula for Coca-Cola was never patented. They kept it as a trade secret, and they've outlasted patent laws by 80 years or more.

A country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn't travel anyway but sideways and backwards.