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

Fri Jul 12 19:44:31 UTC 2013

Right you are... While you didn't mention patents specifically, you mentioned IP generally. My copyright-obsessed mind is to blame...

On Jul 12, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Jason Moore <moorepants at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20130712/823186ac/attachment-0001.html>