[open-science] Outlining the argument for open commercialization

Thu Jun 20 06:02:00 UTC 2013

Reading through the outline again I thought I would add one more point
to the discussion.

Suddenly (well, over couple of years), many people and organizations
started looking into alternatives (including open models) not because
_they_ had changed. Economy had changed. They would continue to throw
money at any problems and challenges if they swam in cash like Scrooge
McDuck. But they don't anymore. I don't think most of the people would
seriously consider a bumpy ride on off the beaten path of open
commercialization, if the current situation wasn't muddle-through
economy (phrase coined by John Mauldin, one of my favourite analysts
out there).

PS

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Paweł Szczęsny <ps at pawelszczesny.org> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I'm commenting here, as I'm not really sure where does it fit in your outline.
>
> First, there are a few arguments for opening certain resources as a
> part of bussiness strategy, as it:
> - allows for redefining bussiness model (or develop additional
> bussiness models - think Apache or RedHat; there was an open
> consulting company back then in 2009, I cannot find the name right
> now)
> - makes it harder to block the company (protection against patent
> trolls and others, see for example Intellectual Property Program from
> SAE Consortium http://www.saeconsortium.org/index.php?q=node/12 )
> - lets the company to actually set the industry standard in just
> forming areas of commercialization (Raspberry Pi? I think it has a
> better business strategy than Arduino)
>
> Second, there is a legal layer to the process of opening a resource. I
> think it is worth looking into strong copyleft (so called viral)
> licenses. Businesses like them, as it adds another mechanism of
> protection of their actual positition.
>
> Actually, I gave a talk similar to the outline above. If you are
> interested (or anybody else of course), I can mail the slides directly
> to you (or anybody else). Unfortunately, this were one of these
> meetings, where the materials cannot be shared on the public forum (I
> know, in principle nobody cares, but I prefer to stick to the spirit
> of the agreement).
>
> Best wishes
> PS
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Greg Austic <gbathree at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm a researcher at Michigan State University and am putting together a
>> presentation to promote the concept of open commercialization (bringing
>> technology to market without IP) to admin higher-ups  and I'd like your
>> help.
>>
>> I am looking for more examples to strengthen and simplify the arguments for
>> open commercialization (no intellectual property) versus traditional
>> commercialization.  Ultimately, I would like to see this outline as
>> something that anyone can use to make a similar pitch at other universities.
>>
>> If you'd like to help, please read through the outline in google docs and
>> add arguments, examples, and links wherever you see fit.  I've already noted
>> many places in the outline where I think specific examples would be
>> valuable.
>>
>> Please please share this with other people or lists that you think may be
>> helpful!
>>
>> I think that the time is ripe for making this argument, and Universities may
>> be ready to consider moving back towards a truly open model of information.
>> Thanks so much for your help!
>>
>> --
>>
>> Greg Austic
>>
>> PS - If you're interested in our specific project it's www.photosynq.org.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>