Ford and Gatling are two rare examples of individuals who did something genuinely new and profited handsomely from it. That’s why we remember them. But, to be fair, Gatling was the only real revolutionary between the two — Ford only improved marginally on an existing invention (the car) and an existing process (mass-production, courtesy Eli Whitney).

But the days of skunkworks are long over. Few businesses put money into R&D. Why? Because it’s better to be a follower than a leader.

DELL COMPUTERS - First company with the ingenious idea of allowing on-line personal add-on computer building. (He actually started the company as PC Limited out of his dorm room)

FORD - First to use the innovative idea of a model assembly plant for mass production of automobiles

Nike - First to “brand” an entire shoe company with a single NBA star (Jordan Shoes)

Domino’s Pizza - Tom Monaghan’s idea to be the first mass producing pizza delivery change. In the UK, Domino’s is the first to allow pizza ordering on-line, to mass success.

Walt Disney - Disney World - First to fully intergrate a theme park with children’s movies and fantasy characters to mass success.

Orson Wells - the first filmaker to use expersisonism in lightining and shadow for Citizen Kaine.

Charles Francis Dolan (HBO) - Cable television pioneer, created the first urban underground cable system, as well as the first network focused exclusively on movies 24 hours a day.

Boeing - Created the first commecial transport aircraft with pressurized cabins to enable the plane to fly at then unheard of 20,000 feet

Richard J. Gatling - Created the first successful rapid-repeating firearm.

I could go on and on, and all of these businesses were the first to do what they did and were successful to do so. Risk aversion is often the death of a business, and while I agree that being the first to do something can also lead to financial ruin, most successful Fortune 500 companies in American today started out with an idea, one that was seen farfetched at the time, and then with innovation and risk became successful.

I just find it still amazing that you stand by the statement that as a RULE being the first to do anything in business is a mistake. It’s portrays a mindset that is baffling.

Just heard on the news that the bill was killed. The reason was… “it was excessive against private business”…

A good number of bills were slated to be killed by that subcommittee today. The House Republican leadership realized that there were a number of bills that enjoy overwhelming support that they could kill by steering into the right subcommittee. I understand that there will be rather a harsh rebuke issued by Senate leaders tomorrow as a result. This illustrates everything that’s wrong with this new power of subcommittees to kill bills.

I hope somebody — media or a blogger — was there to document today’s subcommittee meeting. (Hence my encouragement for bloggers to attend in my original post.)

But others are better equipped to answer that question than I, since I’m not sure that those are real satisfying answers.

A collective of Business owners *are* making this decision.

There is a sadly mistaken perception that business owners are usually free-market advocates. Don’t buy into it. American businesses adopt much of the free-market lingo and talk a big game, but once they’ve gotten established they form groups and do everything possible to maintain the profitable status quo and to restrict the entry of new competition. They don’t want the change that a truly free market will tend to bring. They are where they are (rather than failed and penniless) because the way things are and the current state of competion allowed it. To risk changing these circumstances is to risk losses. They’re doing pretty good so they don’t want to rock the boat. If some restaraunts allow smoking and others do not then that is going to cause shifts in the marketplace one way or another. It’s an unknown factor that could shift business from one restaraunt to another. If you’re already making money then why risk being on the losing end of that?

I say this as part owner of a wholesale insurance brokerage. I’m pretty pro-business. I hear the ‘free market’ rhetoric all the time, yet I constantly witness efforts within the insurance industry to make the club more exclusive and to use the force of law to avoid risking change.

Thus has it ever been. Look at European trade guilds going back to the fifteenth century. Why did they come up with all those rules and restrictions about how big a loaf of bread had to be and how long an apprentice had to work before being allowed by his employer to act as a journeyman? These were rules that the tradesmen came up with on their own and mostly enforced themselves. Why didn’t they just allow each business owner to make their own decisions? Because of the logic of their collective action to prevent change and ensure steady, predictable income.

Do you know what happened to the first inventor of the sewing machine? Not Elias Howe, but the guy who came up with it before Howe. Bathelemy Thimonnier built his first sewing machine in Paris, 1830. He made a ton of money cranking out uniforms for the French army by using far less labor than any of his competition. This did not endear him to the local tailor’s guild, who (rather than try to copy his machines or buy them from him) stormed his 80 machine factory and burnt it to the ground. Twice. Thimonnier was chased out of France entirely and was forced to flee to England with a single machine he had managed to salvage.

That is the brutal reality of industry groups. They hate change, they hate innovation and when they act as a group they will do whatever they can to keep their current distribution of business the same without rocking the boat.

How can you say restaurant owners support this ban because of a fear of “being the first”? There are many non-smoking restaurants already.

You’re absolutely right, but few of them are the big chains that have the real pull in the hospitality industry. The local joints are dwarfed by the big chains, w/r/t political influence.

Why should even the localities decide? Why not the restaurant owners? I heartily agree with the comment that smoking should be banned from places like banks, grocery stores, schools, day care, retirement homes, etc. But bars? If what you say is true (i.e. that business won’t suffer) then why not allow business owners to make their own decisions?

Also, I understand Phillip Morris has opened a tobacco lounge in Chicago as a test. They have passed an ordinance very similar to this bill. You pay $10.00 for a pack of hand rolled cigarettes that are filled with your choice of spices and you can enjoy the drink, food and entertainment. As long as a certain percentage of sales come from tobacco sales, they are within the law. Guess what? Even though smokers are ONLY allowed to smoke in this single extremely ventilated, indoor place…. non-smokers are still complaining… Geeeeez!

Phillip Morris…. Are you there???? PLEASE BRING A SMOKING LOUNGE TO RICHMOND!!! Flights to Chicago are really expensive!

I knew about the Dillon rule issue with localities (likely why Alexandria or Arlington hadn’t done anything already). In this instance, I think that correcting that (as the original bill would have) is the way to go.

I think the hospitality industry worried a bit too much about competition across localities. I have not heard anything coming from Maryland about the local bans there. I just don’t think it would be that much of an issue. People will go where they go; maybe a few smokers will drive 20 miles to go to a bar that they can smoke in, but I don’t think it’s going to be killing any businesses anytime soon.

As for the patchwork of laws, I’m sorry, I work in the environmental field: smoking v. non-smoking patchwork laws would be sooo easy to work with compared to the patchwork that is environmental law (plus many resturants are operated in only one locality or are franchies and so the owner only worries about that one store, or a couple at most).

I understand the objections, I just don’t think they matter that much. I really think the best option is to let localities decide what to do. Screw the hospitality industry :)