[p2p-research] Dual Licensing of Research in Renewable Energy

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Allan,

do you have any article where this connection between open source and
patents is explained, perhaps with an example.

This would be very useful for our p2p blog and our
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Manufacturing section,

Many thanks for considering writing it if it doesn't exist yet as well,

Michel

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Sterling D. Allan <
sterlingda at pureenergysystems.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> In open sourcing a key technology, the original concept is open to the
> world, but improvements made by individual companies can be patented, which
> then gives them the usual advantages in taking it to the market.
>
> Any key concept will need improvements before it can be made commercially.
>
> Sterling
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Austin <brentley at gmail.com>
> *To:* Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com>
> *Cc:* Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> ; Peer-To-Peer Research
> List <p2presearch at listcultures.org> ; Open Manufacturing<openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com>; Samuel
> Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> ; Sterling D. Allan<sterlingda at pureenergysystems.com>; Paul
> B. Hartzog <paulbhartzog at gmail.com> ; Richard Adler<the.croupier at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 3:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Dual Licensing of Research in Renewable Energy
>
>  Hello P2P Community,
>
> It's been several weeks since I last checked in.  I've been working on the
> first half of the paper, gather information on the background of the energy
> crisis, my objectives for writing this paper, and the literature review.  I
> just thought that I would send out an update...and potentially glean more
> information before moving forward with the actual data and analysis.
>
> I've made some revisions to the business model.  In writing my literature
> review, I focused on 3 different areas of research (open innovation, open
> source, and stakeholder theory).  Here is a condensed break-down of the
> paper:
>
> The energy crisis will likely be resolved using a variety of approaches
> (subsidies, legislation, activism, etc) of which my paper touches on one:
> innovation.  I define innovation as the creation and commercialization of
> new ideas and inventions.  In effect, Inventors and Entrepreneurs co-exist
> to make successful solar panels, hydrogen cars, wind turbines, and countless
> other technologies/products we haven't even explored yet.
>
> For Entrepreneurs, open innovation (OI) is one of the best ways to
> commercialize new ideas.  By sourcing and licensing R&D outside of their
> walls, they can benefit from new idea and insights.  Innocentive is a prime
> example.  When these ideas are abundant, easy to search, easy to license,
> and easy to incorporate, open innovation flourishes.
>
> For Inventors, open source (or peer-to-peer production, or a knowledge
> economy, or a scientific commons) is one of the best ways to create new
> inventions and ideas.  Whereas open innovation is cooperative, open source
> is collaborative.  There are many reasons to champion OS (including the
> ethics of "free" and "public"), but the emphasis on this paper is on OS'
> ability to speed invention….in essence, I stress the instrumental benefits
> rather than the normative ones.
>
> While open innovation requires ownership, OS typically typically avoids the
> privatization of publicly created products, making the two systems
> incompatible on the surface.  However, bringing the production styles
> together can be accomplished using dual-licensing.  In essence, the OS
> community will allow private firms to use publicly available information for
> commercial purposes IF these firms pay money back into the system via
> royalties.  These royalties will help fuel future research in renewable
> energy.
>
> Open Innovation and Open Source are set against stakeholder theory
> (instrumental stakeholder theory) in which firms are more successful when
> they balance the disparate needs of individual stakeholders.  However, at
> its core, stakeholder theory places "shareholders" above all other
> stakeholders since the ultimate goal of almost every firm is profit.  The
> needs of employees, suppliers, governments, etc are all means to an end.  My
> paper argues for a different approach.  Rather than start with a firm that
> assesses and prioritizes stakeholders, why not have stakeholders come
> together and design a firm (or a system) that meets their needs.  In other
> words, let's not start under the assumption that the firm (and thus the
> investors) already exist…instead, let's work backwards…so as to ensure that
> the system/firm's mandate comes from innovation-driven stakeholders rather
> than from profit-seeking shareholders….essentially a non-profit company.
>
> This however presents one major challenge.  In the absence of investors,
> how does the community of OS scientists and researchers cover the costs of
> expensive R&D.  Some of this R&D can be broken up into modular form, making
> it more affordable.  We have already seen this in many aspects of open
> manufacturing and open design.  Other areas, however, are potentially too
> expensive for any individual to afford.  Dual license payments can help keep
> the firm (or system) afloat once the project has already started, but how
> does the project actually get off the ground in the first place?  Would
> donations work..and if so, how?  Is there a way to do this without
> government assistance?
>
> In any event, here is a slightly revised business model for a fictional
> company called Green R&D:
>
>
>    1. Green R&D is non-profit company whose sole purpose is to assist with
>    innovation.  In addition to keeping a stable of paid scientists and
>    researchers, Green R&D also oversees financing, budgeting, patent
>    applications, and litigation.  It essentially pays for the more expensive
>    aspects of Renewable Energy research that freelance scientists might not be
>    able to afford if they worked in more open source-style collaboration.  It
>    also assists with long-term planning, suppliers, contracts, etc.
>       1. All prototypes and research are placed under a GPL-style license.
>
>     1. The initial financing for Green R&D is still unknown.
>    2. Green R&D opens it findings to the public for contributions, thus
>    benefiting from peer-to-peer production and input.  Scientists, researchers,
>    and laypeople around the world collaborate, adding to the growing pool of
>    research.  Whenever technically feasible, new improvements and discoveries
>    are placed under the same GPL-style license.
>    3. Private firms may use this public information for its own purposes,
>    but in doing so, it must pay a royalty.
>       1. The royalty would have to be carefully determined to minimize
>       cheating while maximizing payments.
>    4. A volunteer watch group ensures compliance between privatized
>    products and royalty payments.
>     1. I'm still working on the incentive structure for this watch group,
>       although http://www.peertopatent.org/ offers some useful insights on
>       how this might work.
>       2. I'm also still working on a way to properly measure royalty
>       payments.
>
> Royalty payments go back to the Green R&D solely for the purpose of future
> research.  There are no "profits" per se.  Green R&D exists only to make
> renewable energy financing possible.  The entire system is more of an
> innovation machine than it is a "business model."  It helps brings Inventors
> and Entrepreneurs together if and when the former lacks sufficient capital
> to get started.
>
>
> In addition to financing, there is one final area that I have yet to
> resolve.  Does anyone know of an existing community of freelance researchers
> and scientists who already work in the renewable energy sector?  For some of
> my primary research, I need to talk to those who might potentially be
> involved with the above business model.  I've already spoken with energy
> scientists from corporate firms and with P2P experts, but finding those in
> the middle (i.e. P2P energy scientists) has been difficult.
>
> Anyway, hope all is well.  Thanks again for all the previous assistance you
> offered...and thanks in advance for any additional insights you might be
> able to provide.
>
> Take care P2P folks,
>
> -Austin
>
>


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090814/d4470c7c/attachment.html>