[open-science] Proof to funding agencies (companies) that open work is a good idea

[Mr. Puneet Kishor]

These (and those pointed out in other emails) are all great examples but... there is always a but.
Jason's use case is a bit unique. A state govt wants to monetize its IP, and given how the structure of governance is set up in the US, a state govt's financial needs and constraints are unique. In fact, the same would apply anywhere else with a similar structure, not just in the US. US taxpayers pay the same federal tax no matter where they are, but people from out of Ohio don't pay tax in Ohio. Which is why we have different tuition costs for those out-of-state vs from within the state

This is a complicated problem that interests me greatly--how to reconcile "free as in speech" with making money. That is, business models that allow being open while making money. In fact, I would argue, talking about "free as in beer" both dilutes and muddies the stronger argument about "free as in speech."

Look at the subject line--it specifically asks for ideas that *open work* is a good idea, not that *'free as in beer' work* is a good idea.

I think of this as infrastructure that should remain free vs value-added layer that should be monetized, and if restricting access to it is required for monetization, well, so be it. So, for example, in a data driven project, the data are the infrastructure, and the interface to easily access it, make sense of it, analyze it, etc. are protected.

I look forward to more brainstorming on this subject, specifically targeting a funder's need to recoup or even benefit monetarily from its investment in a work while ensuring that some base portion of the work remains open for others to build upon. And, especially so in circumstances where a funder's ability to fund is restricted, but digital nature of the work ensures that its dissemination would not be so restricted.

Many thanks,

Puneet.


On Jul 12, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Greg Austic <gbathree at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jason - I'm interested in a similar question of how to convince
> universities to allow or even better support open commercialization / open
> innovation.  When making your arguments, they care about money first, then
> publications, then collaborative opportunities in that order.  Here's my
> suggestions:
> 
> 1) FUNDING: The federal government is now requiring openness for federally
> funding research.
> http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/13/how-unique-is-the-new-u-s-open-data-policy/.
> That means if states are interested in getting federal funding, they
> should pursue consistent policies.
> 
> 2) EXAMPLES: The best example I could find was Arduino.  Arduino is a
> microcontroller platform that has become incredibly popular, and was
> developed out of the Design Institute in Ivrea Italy (a university).  It is
> open in it's hardware, software, and design, and is successful because it
> was open and effectively created a user community who also helped design,
> market, and add on to the original unit.  This enabled an Ivrea electronics
> factory (one of the first in the world, but one of the last left in italy)
> to continue to produce something which is otherwise almost exclusively made
> in China and places where labor is cheap.
> 
> 3) LOWER COST: No need to patent, license, etc. means you save at least
> 40k, but it's actually much more than that.  If you comb through this -
> http://www.cherrycommission.org/docs/Resources/Economic_Benefits/2nd.Annual.medc_tech-transfer.assessment.pdf
> you can find some data about the average cost per patent and per license,
> at least for 3 unviersities in michigan during the period of this study.
> Needless to say, it's expensive and while it may pay off for a few
> universities who get the rare home run (for MSU, a single cancer drug
> patent accounts for the vast majority of the income in their portfolio - if
> not for that they'd be underwater), it does not pay off for most.
> 
> 4) BRANDING/MARKETING: Open data means more people are going to see your
> work - that means more people see the universities name.
> 
> 5) EASIER MORE FLUID COLLABORATION --> FASTER/BETTER RESEARCH:
> Patent/license restrictions slow continued research down to a standstill.
> If you open up the information it should mean more papers published from
> your university.
> 
> 6) CONCEPT: This is the weakest argument from their perspective,
> unfortunately :)  But if you're at a public university, you should mention
> that it's public money and few other parts of the government are allowed to
> create intellectual property for the sole benefit of a single company
> (imagine if that happened in the accounting department, or the department
> of education...!).
> 
> Other resources I can think of that make these kinds of arguments and have
> examples:
> 
> p2pfoundation.net
> sensorica.co
> 
> I recently had a discussion at MSU about open commercialization and the
> recorded version is here.   It was interesting because the head of our Tech
> Transfer department was there, so getting his perspective was very useful.
> The link to that is here:
> 
> http://msuglobal.com/2013/07/video-open-source-technology-in-science/
> 
> I'm trying to write-up a generalized argument for why U's should support
> open commercialization at P2Pfoundation.net and hope to have it up soon
> (when I find the time).
> 
> Hope that helps -
> 
> Greg
> 
> -- 
> Greg Austic
> 
> 2198 Seminole Dr.
> Okemos, MI 48864
> (919) 545 1083
> 
> www.austiclabs.com
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science