[p2p-research] Open Source Hardware and University Patents (2010-12-19)

[Michel Bauwens]

: Article: Open Source Hardware and University Patents
(2010-12-19)<http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/t/b14d63865fc5a3b6>
Bryan
Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> Dec 20 02:01PM -0600
^<?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4#12d08c709987cbcc_digest_top>

Open Source Hardware and University Patents
http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/wordpress/2010/12/open-source-hardware-and-university-patents/

"""
What would happen if a group of inventors of new circuit boards and machine
parts aggressively published detailed descriptions of their inventions?
These same inventors would open source the hardware behind their inventions,
making publicly available all the schematics, detailed description of needed
parts and software, drawings and “board” files – basically all the
information anybody would need to identically re-create the product or
object. Next time somebody tried to patent something similar, perhaps
borrowing from open sourced designs, a wealth of prior art would appear in
the USPTO search, making it impossible for an company, university or
individual to claim ownership of the intellectual property. This idea was
presented at the first ever Open Hardware Summit recently by John Wilbanks,
VP of Science at Creative Commons.

The world of product development and IP management is changing. The Internet
has opened up a huge collaborative space, speeding up product development
cycles and the rate of prototyping. Patents take too long to get. Lengthy
license negotiations are the kiss of death. Open sourced software is already
an industry staple and steady source of product improvement. Open source
hardware is next. The ground rules of the Bayh Dole were set in place 30
years ago in a dramatically different world. Remember the enormous mobile
phone Michael Douglas used in Wall Street? That’s how far things have come
in the world of research, invention and product design and development.

Consider the findings of the great Eric Von Hippel who studies user-led
innovation and its impact on product development and IP licensing. His book
Democratizing Innovation is a must read for anybody who works around IP. Von
Hippel’s research reveals that consumers contribute a significant amount of
product design innovation that’s then slurped up by companies and
re-introduced in their next version of product. Market research, at best,
provides a rough guess at what consumers need, but the real meat of product
feedback is based in user created prototypes and improvements to their tools
(e.g. kiteboards, mountain bikes, surgical tools, pipe fitting).

University researchers work collaboratively, in fact, many federal grants
require interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaborations. The
cutting edge platform-type research typical of universities offers an
enormous stage on which user communities can build, research and tinker,
particularly when university research make the data, software and materials
freely available to their colleagues. Given the fact that more and more
innovation takes place on a public stage shared by many actors, patents,
material transfer agreements (particularly those for a fee) and complicated
license “negotiations” do not meet the original goal of the Bayh-Dole Act,
which was and still is to “promote the utilization of federally funded
invention.”

Many university technology transfer practitioners are already onto this.
They wish they could try new things. I’ve had many discussions with
intelligent, industry-savvy licensing people who know the current model is
creaky and increasingly more antiquated. University faculty researchers are
already onto this. They are already voting with their feet by partaking in
the IP grey market or open sourcing and publishing their work in order to
make sure the world gets to use what they create. Pioneering work is taking
place in the areas of humanitarian licensing to promote global health,
thanks to the good work of groups such as the Technology Managers for Global
Health as well as the Statement of Principles put together and endorsed last
year by AUTM and six universities.

Based on my observations as a university technology transfer practitioner at
a large research university, here are some of the challenges that technology
transfer offices face that prevent them from being more vocal and radical
about exploring new technology transfer models.

* Simple inertia and lack of higher level support. Change is risky and
disruptive and will force entirely new ways of thinking about things and
staffing tech transfer offices. Many tech transfer offices must please
Boards of Trustees and university higher ups; without their support, change
is impossible.

* Misinterpreting Bayh Dole. It’s a common belief that Bayh Dole
mandates patenting. This is not true. There’s a lot more leeway than
commonly believed (see previous post ).

* Still wanting to recoup their university’s “investment” in research.
Despite the fact that universities claim a hefty 50+% chunk of federal grant
money in the form of administrative overhead, I can’t tell you how many
times I’ve heard high-level research administrators claim the university
needs to at least try to commercialize the resulting inventions in hopes of
making money from them. The university is fed by federal research grants,
not the other way around.

* Trying to do economic development. The majority of university
administrators don’t have time to delve into the feasibility of these
emerging models so they’re not yet comfortable convincing their regional
legislators that not patenting and licensing inventions is not always the
best way to spark the creation of university spinoffs. Somebody in the
university administration has gotta learn to make a convincing pitch for
change and then start doing it.

* Fear of losing career momentum. I have seen (and have experienced)
intense pressure in university tech transfer offices to keep quiet about
sub-optimal policies and procedures in order to be loyal to the tech
transfer office by “protecting Bayh Dole.” Most university technology
transfer practitioners want to protect Bayh Dole in a wonderful way. Wanting
to harvest the fruits of federally funded research to create jobs and a high
tech economy is a great thing — that’s what drew people to this field in the
first place. However, equally great is the freedom to re-evaluate one’s
business model so that if necessary, one can course-correct in order to
continue to improve. Ironically, universities are based on the idea of
promoting “intellectual freedom.” Sadly, university business units who would
otherwise prefer to change their methods can’t, in part, because of internal
pressure to remain silent about what’s not working. Faculty may enjoy the
freedom to speak and to explore innovative ways to improve the world, but
academic freedom does not always extend to academic staff in tech transfer
units.

In coming posts, I’m going to start digging into possible new university
technology transfer models based on the new world of innovation. In the
meantime, take a look at some of the emerging products based on open source
hardware.

-- 
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

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101221/a1b1f3f1/attachment.html>