[p2p-research] Two models Tech transfer for climate change: The Open Hardware Transfer Strategy Model vs. The Technology Cooperation Commons

[Michel Bauwens]

Open Green Tech and open business models for climate-change oriented
technology transfer<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-green-tech-and-open-business-models-for-climate-change-oriented-technology-transfer/2010/02/05>
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-green-tech-and-open-business-models-for-climate-change-oriented-technology-transfer/2010/02/05

Editor  "Julio Lambing" <julio.lambing at e5.org>,

E5 <http://www.e5.org/> has written a interesting report on open green tech
transfer, and its financing models:

* * Climate Justice as Business Case: Innovative Business Models for the
Transfers of Climate-Friendly Technologies. By Hans Schuhmacher, with
support from Julio Lambing et al. European Business Council for Sustainable
Energy. Preliminary English version. 06 December 2009 *

*Please note: This paper is licensed under the CC license but it is
preliminary and will soon be replaced by a fully authorized version. *

*1. The different models*

*The Open Hardware Transfer Strategy Model*

** Concise definition: Analogous to Open Source Software, Open Hardware is a
community-based development instrument for technologies. A viral GPL
(General Public License) facilitates implementation and further development
of technologies.*

** Application for technology cooperation: Adaption of technologies to local
conditions, steady further development of technologies, cost-effective
involvement of many codevelopers.*

** Achievement potential : Adaption of technologies can be transacted by
those who know these conditions best. The viral GPL license allows
commercial use of technological knowledge and know-how under the condition
that further developments are accessible under the same conditions and under
the same license. Innovations and discoveries by grassroots innovators, also
in the global South, can be utilised. Co-developers pass through an
„unofficial apprenticeship“. Also, technologies that are not marketable can
be utilised. Participating technology companies can access the capacity of
developer communities. Peer-to-Peer-assessment safeguards high quality.*

** Prerequisite for effectiveness : Clarification of legal and juridical
framework conditions, design of a valid business model for a Open Hardware
platform, investment in the development of the database, public funding for
this, international interlinking of Open Hardware initiatives, creation of
suitable public environments, involvement of publicly-funden RD&D. The
problem of deficient protection of innovations in many countries of the
global South has to be solved, for the benefit of technology companies from
the global North as well as for the benefit of innovators in the global
South.*

** Practical experiences : Numerous positive experiences in the sphere of
Open Source software, sporadic experiences regarding Open Hardware*

** Possible correlations : In the spheres of knowledge transfer and capacity
building, also with initiatives for development cooperation. Cost reduction
due to Open Hardware may facilitate proliferation of start-ups. Peer-to-Peer
assessments, like in Open Source software development, can facilitate
validation of businesses and projects.*

*The success of Open Source software development brought about the
appearance of similar initiatives in the sphere of Open Hardware.
Utilisation of Open Hardware for global climate protection attracts growing
interest. To date, e5 initiates an Open Hardware project.*

*The characteristic strengths of Open Hardware are the following: Generally,
Open Hardware projects do not only make patent documentation accessible,
they also provide information on design, components used, software codes and
descriptions of development steps. This information packets are, in turn,
extended by the communities and their further developments. The development
of a given technology, thus, becomes intelligible for others and facilitates
implementation, adaptation and further development of the technology.*

*Open Hardware is „viral“, i.e. the model incorporates, by means of its
characteristic licenses (for example the GNU public license GPL25), every
innovation based on the original technology under this license. Thus,
further innovations are accessible under the same conditions. This is
important if a steady circuit of feedback and further development is
desired. Analogous to companies that cooperate with Open Source communities,
the innovation gain of participating technology companies may rise the
faster and the more diversified the process of further development is.
Peer-to-Peer review safeguards the characteristic high quality of Open
Source software and will likely do the same in Open Hardware development.*

*Active participation in an Open Source or Open Hardware community is
comparable to an inofficial technological apprenticeship that is practically
costless for those who provide know-how. „Local Champions“ and cooperation
partners in the global South can improve their expertise as well as
participating technology companies in industrialised countries. Furthermore,
Open Hardware facilitates supranational or even global exchange of knowledge
and experiences as well as networking effects. The intensity of the
innovation stimulus is not predictable and unratable.*

*Open Hardware is an interesting option for technology companies in
industrialised countries also because of new possibilities to utilize
technologies unsuitable for the market. Advantages are also conceivable
regarding technologies that can be easily imitated and are components of
technologies fit for the market. In these and similar cases, the common
innovation dividend provided by Open Hardware may bring about the
development of new marketable products. The expenditure, however, is
minimal. At the same time, these platforms can be used for establishing
contacts between companies in different hemispheres. These contacts, in
turn, may become points of origin for technology cooperation projects.*

*A difficulty encountered in the initiation phase of such an innovation
model is lack of knowledge among investors regarding cooperative models.
Only when business models are fully developed, clear criteria for businesses
will be discernible when, depending on market penetration and state of
development, a decision for a viral license is advisable. This is another
reason why technology companies should participate in the development of
this instrument. As an alternative or additionally to a full GPL licence,
commercial license can be employed that allows patenting and licensing of
further developments but grants a share of all gains to the original patent
holder. This would enable technology companies with small production
capacities to market their technologies globally and particularly foster
SMEs. A part of these gains would be withheld by the platform for covering
costs and creating funds for the advancement of technology development. A
step-by-step realisation of the instrument is conceivable. Even if
technology companies in the initial phase only contribute technologies
unsuitable for the market, it is possible that the model succeeds. Potential
candidates are also technologies which are no longer protected by patents –
e.g. many patents for the use of renewable technologies are expired. In
contrast to so-called „patent databases“, Open Hardware enables a return
flow of further development and options for cooperation. Such an initial
phase may already be beneficial for technology cooperation. At the same
time, it facilitates building of trust, reification of the debate and
gaining insights which may be used to improve the instrument.*

*The Technology Cooperation Commons as transfer model*

** Concise definition: Imparting of knowledge and knowledge exchange on a
global plane by means of web 2.0 platforms and and a Creative Commons
license fur advancing technology cooperation.*

** Application for technology cooperation : Overcoming of cultural, language
and knowledge barriers,imparting of knowledge and knowledge exchange in the
spheres of climatefriendly technology and business.*

** Achievement potential: Technologies have to be adapted to local
conditions, private business activities have to be integrated in cultural
and social environments. In order to be effective, local „forms“ of
technologies and business have to be developed locally. A prerequisite for
this is access to knowledge and know-how. The instrument facilitates this
and also enables interlinking and exchange between technology cooperation
projects and their participants world-wide.*

** Prerequisite for effectiveness: Clarification of legal and juridical
framework conditions, public funding, creation of suitable public
environments, involvement of publicly funded RD&D.*

** Practical experiences: Web 2.0-based knowledge and communication
platforms and Creative Commons are successfully employed in diverse spheres
of activities and knowledge, but up to now not in the sphere of technology
cooperation.*

** Possible correlations: Interlinking with all models for capacity building
and knowledge transfer are possible. Open Hardware or the Web 2.0 Cleantech
Investment Forum would benefit from this instrument, and vice versa. The
instrument may facilitate startups in the global South, instruments proposed
in this paper (Section I) may be employed to finance them.*

*Cultural and language barriers are potential obstacles for technology
cooperation. Language barriers alone26 may be an obstacle for potential
technology entrepreneurs or grassroots developers in developing countries
because basic English, for example, does not suffice to impart complex
technological information. Open Source platforms for technical texts that
provide basic knowledge („How does wind power work?“) up to very complex
information could produce relief. Students and scientists from developing
countries could provide translations under Creative Commons licenses and
would, thus, contribute to the sustainable development of their countries.
When translations into the main languages of a developing country are
accessible, the barrier for translations into local languages is much lower.
Documents under Commons licenses may be printed, copied and diffused in
order to reach those who have no access to modern communications
technologies. For businesses and project personnel on site it is easier to
write reports on technological developments, problems and so on in their own
language. If these reports also find their way to the translator communities
of the Technology Cooperation Commons, local experiences can be utilized
globally. In the sphere of Open Source software, this response process as
well as communication among users work very well.*

*The portals of this virtual hubs of technology cooperation may be designed
by user communities according to their own needs. Examples would be
technology encyclopedia analogous to wikipedia that collect and provide
implantation know-how, collections of project documents, exchange forums and
synopses of local parameters based on geographical information systems.
Modern ICT technology facilitates other depiction modes apart from texts and
technical drawings. Video material and animations with multilingual
soundtracks and sub-titles as well as other media may achieve positive
effects. Likewise, vital information for novice entrepreneurs can be
imparted and experiences can be shared.*

*2. Some concrete initiatives*

*LEEN <http://www.leen-system.de/en> - Management System for Local Energy
Efficiency Networks*

*This system for learning networks for medium sized companies was initiated
in Switzerland as instrument for advancing energy efficiency. Moderated by a
professional, knowledgeable senior engineer , 10-15 companies participate in
regular meetings (four times per year) for sharing experience and learning
from invited experts . The companies define a joint target for
energy-efficiency improvement and CO2 emission reduction with a four-year
time horizon, based on individual potentials of the sites. Yearly, energy
demand and CO2 emission of the participating companies are verified, the
whole process is monitored. Participating companies have reduced their
specific energy consumptions as well as their specific carbon dioxide
emissions by about 12-20% within 6 years. About 90 learning networks are
active to date, the participants are approximately 1.000 companies from
Switzerland and Germany.*

*These networks could also be employed for technology cooperation. Learning
networks for energy efficiency might be as useful in rapid developing
regions.*

*RETEX <http://www.gtz.de/en> (Renewable Energy Technology Exchange)*

*This concept for technology cooperation was developed by the Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in collaboration with the
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, commissioned by the German
Federal Ministry for Economic Collaboration and Development.*

*RETEX aims at overcoming three main obstacles for the diffusion of
climate-friendly technologies in the global South, namely: lack of reliable
and cost-efficient technologies; lack of knowledge and know-how; lack of
financial means. The instrument focusses on poor developing countries and is
to advance the South-South exchange of technologies. In the initial phase,
RETEX is to concentrate on Mini- and Micro-Hydro power (MHP). Core elements
are an online platform for knowledge exchange and the establishment of a
network of local expert core groups which, in collaboration with other
institutions, maintain a training and consulting service.*

*Essential elements are:*

*• intensive local training units; • an interdisciplinary approach,
integrating technical, business, legal, juridical and policy aspects; •
advancement of South-South exchange by means of active networking; The
online internet platform provides information on: • standards – technical
information on MHP technologies, feasibility analyses, monitoring systems,
definitions of terms etc.; • library: technical manuals, training handbooks,
software for downloading (free of charge), links, an evaluation department;
• selection criteria for electro-mechanical gear – turbines, measurement and
control technology etc.; • database: providers of technologies, consulting
companies, finance partners, international organisations etc.; • best
practices: examples for policies and regulations, critera for project
selection, solvency, financing instruments etc. For members of the RETEX
network, the following exclusive features are also to be available: • open
expert forum for questions and discussions; • consulting service: by
experts, for a fee; • training material accessible if certain quality
standards are met; • licenses and blueprints for members that meet certain
criteria (obligation for regular training, obligation to report).*

*3. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations on Cooperative Innovation Models:*

*Identified Need for Action*

*1. Financing of translations of important websites that advance Open Source
in the spheres of climate-friendly technologies as well as legal and
juridical aspects of Open Source. Most of them are in English. As a first
step, translations into the lingua franca of a given global region are
needed, i.e. Chinese, French, Spanish and Arabian. As a second step,
initiatives willing to provide translations into more local languages should
be encouraged and financed. Multilingual moderation of these websites should
be provided for.*

*2. The public sector should play an important role by the creation and
financing of a noncommercial Green Open Hardware Database. Due to the
current financial crisis, private companies are hard to win over for highly
innovative projects. Public funding would be necessary as an initial spark.
Furthermore, financing by the public sector is necessary in order to avoid
the impression that a few private companies would aim at utilizing the
project for hidden particular interests.*

*3. For the development of an international legal and juridical framework
for a Clean Tech GPL License a technical expert group has to be established.
Up to now, there have only be scattered approaches for appropriate licenses.
This panel could also work as secretariat for the database platform. Their
tasks would consist of management of the Clean Tech GPL license, maintenance
of legal integrity of the original products, diffusion and promotion of
technologies and Clean Tech GPL licenses, maintenance of a platform for
publications on new ideas and innovations developed under this license.*

*4. International conferences should be funded that conjoin creative
thinkers and thought-leaders of the Open Source and Open Hardware
communities. Some of the thought-leaders, initiatives and experts relevant
for such a venture do not have the means to meet face to face. The following
key actors should be gathered: a) thought leaders of the Open Source
movement from industrialised countries and from the global South; b)
companies that already employ Open Hardware; c) representatives from Green
Open Hardware initiatives d) legal experts on Open Source; e) companies and
technology developers in the sphere of climate-friendly technologies; f)
research institutions that can release patents; g) experts from the sphere
of development cooperation.*

*5. It should be proved which of the patented hardware and software under
copyright or patents the development of which was financed by G20 countries
should flow into the portfolio of the Clean Tech GPL programme. This should
be mandatory and regulated accordingly. Such a provision would demand either
joint ownership (patent/copyright holder and platform) or a contract which
allows the platform to issue licenses for these technologies. The national
interest of the country in question should be taken into account.*

*6. Setup of international Clean Tech patent libraries: Transferring of
patents into a pool for crosslicensing grants all producers access to
relevant technologies. Users should be enabled to buy access by warranting a
percentual share in later profits. The gains would flow to the library and
distributed among those who contributed to the technology in question. The
allocation formula should be based on the frequency of technology use.*

*7. Publicly funded tenders for bounty hunters: An agency, set up by the
United Nations, should identify climate-relevant problems and publish
solutions under a GPL license. Such a system could be funded by emissions
taxes.*

*4. More Information*

* Examples for existing Open Hardware projects, databases and communities:
http://www.e5.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=0&page_id=57

* A Creative-Commons license suitable for Technology Cooperation:
Attribution – Noncommercial – Share-alike. at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

* Ghosh, R.: Study on the Economic Impact of Open Source Software on
Innovation and the Competitiveness of the Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) Secor in the EU (FLOSSImpact), UNU-Merit 2006. S.90


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - 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/20100208/96101478/attachment-0001.html>