100, I agree on your definition of proprietary, but I think it is a concept that gets a little fuzzy in the software world. Technically, proprietary should mean "I know how to do this and you don't and moreover I own it". Certainly that is the classic hardware version, often associated with patents to reinforce the I-own-it part.
Software, though, is a funny thing by comparison. There is an awful lot of software IP that is technically in the public domain, but a shocking number of companies just don't get it. What do you call IP that isn't protected, but that most of the industry is too dumb to copy? Now, to be fair, it isn't just dumb, since sometimes it is a question of what is in fashion and what isn't, but I have to tell you that after coming on 35 years in software development, having a good common sense idea in software that is off in some direction other than the current fashion and historical norm is almost safer than having a cast iron patent. Get the patent and someone will be trying to get around it, but have an offbeat software idea and no one will pay any attention, even if you can demonstrate order of magnitude or even multiple order of magnitude results.
Sounds crazy, but that is software. Often, the key to success is not to focus on the proprietary, i.e., the thing one does different from everyone else (especially if they could copy it, were they to just figure that out), but simply to concentrate on the bottom line. Take someone who creates an environment where they can deliver modifications or extensions at half or a tenth or even less than the conventional cost. One would ordinarily think this was a big deal that one should make a marketing focus... wrong. Talk about it and no one will believe it. But, reduce prices, make happy customers, and one is on the road. In software, people will believe, "just better than", but they don't believe in "magic" the same way they do with hardware... even though it is just as real. |
