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

[Greg Austic]

My issue is in the statement that "the wants to monitize IP"... the
government may want to, but I don't think that the people of Ohio really
want to.  I also don't think that the only way to generate value for the
people of Ohio is to prevent value from being co-created in other parts of
the world by using a patent.

I don't know exactly what the right answer is and I think you bring up
legitimate points, but my tendency is to continue to identify successful
ways to generate value *in any form (monetary or otherwise)* for the
creator which minimizes restriction of the flow of information.


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Greg Austic

2198 Seminole Dr.
Okemos, MI 48864
(919) 545 1083

www.austiclabs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130712/ddc399b0/attachment-0001.html>