[p2p-research] Dual Licensing of Research

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Michel-

Just to jump in here as a new member, but isn't a major reason for 
government in most people's conception to do exactly what Austin outlined?

Investors (called citizens) pool their money through "taxes" to do good 
things for society (in theory). And the results could then be free of 
patents and copyrights (in theory, and sometimes in practice).

And when such work is funded by the government, and given freely back to all 
the people, those issues Austin raised on monitoring and enforcement diminish.

What went wrong, at least in the USA, was, among other things, the Bayh-Dole 
act.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act
Which, along with other issues David Goodstein talks about in "the Big 
Crunch", has led to "The Kept University":
   http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm

We now have a situation where universities and other government contractors 
in the USA can keep as proprietary all the patents and copyrights that 
results of government paid for research (paid for in whole or in part). Many 
tens of billions of public US dollars a year in the USA are poured into this 
research system to produce proprietary results. The same is true in Europe 
to some degree. Proponents of this say the government and charitable dollars 
are "extended" by the private dollars thus producing more proprietary 
research; I see the charitable dollars as "contaminated", and so producing 
less public research. Proponents claim that ideas won't be developed further 
without monopolies (the proprietary license in dual licensing Austin 
proposes), whereas I suggest that peers will never get a chance to build 
easily on the research results unless they are open.

It seems like peers are trying to remedy a huge failure of government, even 
while we are already paying lots of taxes supposedly for that function of 
research.

One way to address this issue is to encourage funders (government, 
foundations, individuals) to hold the groups they may fund more accountable 
to a post-scarcity model of abundance for all by sharing research results.
Something I wrote on that: 
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html

But that is just theorizing and pontificating. How does one take this to the 
grassroots level? How does one get most people to care about the freedom of 
the information produced using their tax dollars and other contributions to 
non-profits working towards larger social goals?

For example, in the USA, about US$70 billion was just allocated supposedly 
mostly towards green energy:
   http://www.progressivestates.org/node/23193
Should not the results of that pooled investment be available to all the 
"investors" (that is, every person in the country or even the globe)? But it 
won't be under the dominant non-p2p ideology.

As I see it, these charitable and government dollars are already 
"post-scarcity" dollars (as I see social organization in whatever 
configuration a post-scarcity technology). But, because of *ideology* these 
trillions of post-scarcity dollars are every year being turned back into 
scarcity dollars by things like the Bayh-Dole act or likely these latest 
funding efforts. I don't know if all European countries have similar 
policies? I know, for example, Germany often funds proprietary research, 
like from the history of the MP3 file, which as a proprietary format has 
created all sorts of issues with developing free audio players under 
GNU/Linux, but was developed by a German non-profit subsidized organization:
   http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/MPThree.htm

But how did such an organization come to be? From:
   http://www.fraunhofer.de/EN/press/pi/2009/03/PressRelease2632009.jsp
"After the difficulties of the early years when financial resources were 
persistently tight, the breakthrough came in the 1970s through institutional 
funding from the federal and Land governments."

There you have it -- citizens are paying taxes to have their audio files 
locked up in proprietary formats they then need to pay to legally access. 
That makes no sense from a p2p perspective. Patents are proprietary (though 
they do expire in about twenty years). Copyrights for software or documents 
or artworks effectively never expire.

So, how do we get the general public to pressure governments to open up 
research results so that other people can more easily build on it?

I understand completely where Austin is coming from, and the desire to raise 
funds and do good research that is publicly licensed, and I can hope other 
models like his work as well. That is how a free market is supposed to work 
-- the good part of capitalism like Ryan references that enables people to 
use their initiative to solve problems and meet needs important to 
themselves or others, not the unaccounted externalities part or 
war-profiteering part. But there are literally trillions of US dollars worth 
of funds sloshing through supposedly non-profit organizations every year 
globally, and getting that money directed to open ends seems like a big win, 
if we could do it. Peers would get farther building on that research than 
trying to duplicate what is already being done with their tax dollars but 
made proprietary. Look at how much energy in the GNU/Linux community had to 
go into dealing with the proprietary MP3 standard, and the issue still is 
not completely resolved after years.

Should we be seeing the same proprietary research thing happen with 
renewable energy, too? Should people like Austin have to fight an uphill 
battle against tax-funded proprietary research, doing open innovation at the 
edges of a proprietary core? If it is not all open, should it not at least 
be the other way around -- proprietary innovation at the edges of an open core?

As I see it, the best success will come from some positive synergy of the 
grass roots p2p meshwork and the organizational hierarchies we have built 
around us for other reasons (Manuel de Landa talks about that). Government 
initiatives that put a lot of people together with fancy equipment all in 
one place can produce some useful results. So, ideally, I'd like to see 
people like Austin able to build on a core of free research, however people 
like Austin wanted to fund the work at the edges of the core. But right now, 
it is often the edges that are being freed, not the core. The same is true 
in the pharmaceutical industry, with that industry building on top of 
decades of publicly funded research. And that is all very  frustrating, to 
many people for many reasons. :-(

Now, I understand that sitting around and waiting for big government to act 
is really not part of the peer-to-peer concept. And I don't want to 
discourage anyone from going out and doing research on their own, raising 
funds on their own, and making open things. So, I don't know how to relate 
this issue to p2p, including in terms of peer activism. Any ideas to 
approach this in a positive way?

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> Hi Austin,
> 
> a small recommendation while we are at it.
> 
> have you investigated the Arduino model? it seems to be working and is faced
> with similar issues,
> 
> I remember the creation of a special bank by that community, for funding
> purposes,
> 
> Michel
> 
> 
> 
>> *From:* Austin <brentley at gmail.com>
>> *To:* michelsub2003 at yahoo.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:38:47 PM
>> *Subject:* Dual Licensing of Research
>>
>> Hello Michel,
>>
>> My name is Austin and I recently came across your article (
>> http://www.we-magazine.net/we-volume-02/the-emergence-of-open-design-and-open-manufacturing/)
>> concerning open manufacturing..  I found this piece very encouraging since
>> over the past several weeks, I have been outlining a research paper for
>> school in which a self-sustaining business model could actually help speed
>> up R&D in the renewable energy sector.  I realize, after reading your
>> article, that my business model is not nearly as "new" as I had previous
>> believed....although my approach has a few key differences.
>>
>> I can only imagine how busy you must be, but I was hoping you might provide
>> some clarity concerning dual licensing in an open innovation business
>> model.  I think a very brief background on the actual idea might make my
>> questions easier to frame.  the basic components are:
>>
>>
>>    - Investors pool money into a research firm (we'll call it Green R&D)
>>    - Green R&D works exclusively on renewable technology.  They pay for
>>    the labs, scientists, etc.
>>    - The research is posted online periodically so that anyone and
>>    everyone can contribute, ask questions, make recommendations etc....the
>>    information is essentially in the commons under a "public" license of
>>    sorts..
>>    - Solar panel or Wind turbine companies can use this growing body of
>>    research to bring products to market.
>>    - Green R&D receives an ex post royalty (under a dual license) from any
>>    successful products created by these solar panel and wind turbine companies.
>>    - Green R&D pays out dividends to initial investors and/or uses these
>>    royalties to fund additional research.
>>
>> Energy companies have lower R&D costs since they benefit from Green R&D's
>> public findings.  Innovation happens more quickly since the silo effect has
>> been removed.  You still have market incentives (which help to pay for the
>> research equipment).  And Green R&D only needs a few innovations to actually
>> come to market...kind of how only a fraction of dual licensees in the open
>> source world end up funding the entire Innovation Pool for everyone else (as
>> you mentioned).
>>
>> As you can see, this model bears some similarities to the community-based
>> innovation you discussed in your article....but as I mentioned, there are
>> some major differences as well.
>>
>> This is the starting point of my research paper, but I've run into some
>> difficulties...namely, measuring, monitoring, and enforcing the
>> collaborative IP created under such a framework.  Dual-licensing is easy to
>> implement in the digital world since source code can be monitored, tracked,
>> and segmented.  Not so with research and other forms of technology.  As you
>> pointed out, the manufacturing world (and to a lesser extent the research
>> world) requires capital outlays that don't necessarily exist in open source
>> communities.  Do you believe that dual licensing could work under the
>> business model outlined above?
>>
>> Anyway, thanks in advance for any insights that you might be able to
>> offer.  I'm a latecomer to the P2P, open source, and collaborative genres,
>> but I really applaud what you are doing.