No experiment should be believed until it has been confirmed by theory

This is a phrase you should meditate. I read it in a New York Times article, dealing with an experiment which you have probably heard of. Some scientists made an experimentation where they were able to make some neutrinos faster than the speed of light, which according to the relativity theory of Albert Einstein, was supposed to be the fastest speed possible. The theory of relativity is one of the base of all the physics laws.Breaking up the speed of light meant to think through all the discovers found out based on the Einstein theory. 

Nevertheless, it appeared that this results seemed to have no theory backing it up, meaning it was an abnormal results, rather than a truth. 

"No experiment should be believed until it has been confirmed by theory". Scientists should have confirmed their results through theory. What does that mean? It means that experiments results must be understood and then explained by a theory before they actually mean somethig.

This point is very interesting, and you could correlate it to the world of business. A lot of the times, you may experiment some marketing techniques, sales concept, or new products, experience success. But it is very important to get a theory (or I should say a strategy) behind in order to make sure you may turn your experiment into a success on a larger scale. Too many times, because companies implies to have results fast, managers implement fast new concept stores, or marketing techniques, even before having thought them enough to make sure they would work.

I believe this story and line is very interesting and should be thought while defining one strategy.

What do you think about it?

Some Thoughts About Apple vs Samsung's Trial Results: Copying Could Be Good

I know what you may say, I am a little late to give some thoughts about the news which hit all the headlines for days couple of weeks ago. Appel vs Samsung's trial result has been indeed huge, because of the amounts that were at stake. But actually, sometimes it is also good to step back in order to get a clear view of what happened.

I wanted mainly to comment an article I found during this trial on the Harvard Business Review website. Indeed, I really liked the point it was making. 

We can all agree that Apple has inspired most of smartphones manufacturers since the launch of the first Iphone. When most of smartphone was operated with keyboards, now about 90 % of them have tactile screen, have a system including applications to download. 

Now, does this imply the competitors have copied Apple? In some way, of course, the original idea comes from Apple, but having invented a cool tactile phone should not prevent anyone to be able to improve this idea. Most of the time, great innovations are built on existing one. The problem with the outcome of this trial, is that intellectual property patents have gone too far: for a good competition, and in order to emulate innovation thanks to competition, Samsung should not be considered as a copycat. Actually, because they have brought both innovation and competition, they have contributed as much as Apple to the growth of the cell phone market.

Let's also think about it, if Samsung needs to stop its tactile screen phone activities, who would be left in the market? Apple would probably be dominating the market and then they could be considered in a  monopolistic position. 

Because Samsung is in the market Apple needs to keep on innovating, and it is because of competition, even though companies dislike that, that innovation comes through.

I remember once one of my teacher in Dauphine telling me that companies dislike competitions. Of course they don't because it is costly to fight with others. But if there is no competition, one company has actually no much reasons to satisfy customers or to seek for innovation.

That is the reason why, I am not quite happy about the trial outcomes.

What do you think about it.