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

Fri Jul 12 19:39:18 UTC 2013

Patents are the traditional method of protecting IP, which I did mention
and am interested in hearing about. These companies that we are tied to in
our Ohio grant are interested in protecting the IP we generate with patents.

Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Greg Austic <gbathree at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Other than you "thinking so," is there some other evidence on which you
> can base the above assertion? Doesn't the government of Ohio represent the
> people of Ohio, at least in theory?
>
>
> 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 also think so, but I only think so, and have no evidence to which I can
> point with conviction. I am not sure what exactly the answer is to the
> above. The best answer, of course, would be a working model whereby an
> entity has been able to do just the above -- created a monetary stream to
> continue to fund innovation while also ensuring that the basis of that
> innovation remains free for more innovation by others.
>
> That said, how did you bring "patents" into the picture? I don't recall
> the OP talking about patents, but I could be mistaken.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> No disagreement there, which is the reason I am interested in this
> thread. Look forward to more discussion.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> 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
>> >
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130712/ebe7eb58/attachment-0001.html>