[open-science] Outlining the argument for open commercialization

[Piotr Migdal]

I added some examples, e.g. the StackExchange network (this one form StackOverflow) - the system is proprietary (and the thing is for-profit), but all user-created data is CC BY SA and made easy accessible via API and public database dumps (see e.g. http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/ for a discussion on it).

BTW: Are your going to share your presentation?

Regards,
Piotr
http://migdal.wikidot.com

On 20 Jun 2013, at 14:29, Greg Austic <gbathree at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you everyone for your comments, help, slides, and suggestions!
> 
> Re Florence - I'm using the words "open commercialization" not to exclude other words, but simply because that's the broadest terms I can put it in.  Commercialization just means making a technology available to a market (end users)... so that's a very broad definition and leaves it up to the person doing the work how that process is organized, if it's for profit, etc.  So to me all the great work done in the collaborative economy completely fits into that definition.  However, so do awesome projects like publiclab.org, which is a traditional non-profit but is definitely commercialization technology and developing platforms to engage citizens in science, or Arduino or Raspberry Pi which make money from a product but do not hold exclusive rights to the hardware or software (though they do trademark the name).  
> 
> As in all cases, there are shades of openness, and if we could get universities in the US to move an inch in that direction it'd be a huge plus.  Perhaps some folks on the list don't know, but in the US most (though not all) universities requires professors, researchers, grad students, post docs, etc. to sign away their intellectual property rights when they start working.  So technology development decisions are basically in the hands of the tech transfer department (created through Bay Dohl act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act), which most often leads nowhere, and occasionally leads to a patent which even more rarely leads to a product usually drowns in the cost of it's own IP.  The main site for accumulating this information is here: http://www.autm.net/source/STATT/index.cfm?section=STATT , but of course you have to pay to get the data :)
> 
> In addition, Universities (both public and private) in the US are constantly fighting for more funds, as public funding is dropping like a stone.  There is an increasing reliance on external funding, and an expectation that anything which is done within the university MUST bring in additional money from outside to be considered at all.  So that puts a lot of pressure on open commercialization models because it's somewhat hard to argue they will generate more money, though there are many many other benefits (PR and branding, decrease costs, more consistent with the core values of the U, higher impact, etc. etc.) which others like Pawel have outlined.  It's possible to argue that you can get more grant money by opening up a project, but again we need lots of examples to be convincing.
> 
> Sorry for the rant... but if we could really reinforce this argument effectively with case examples especially those relating to funding and especially ones from the literature as Mat said then we'd have a better chance.  And it only makes sense to share that argument and examples, as this argument will be in large part the same everywhere.
> 
> Building this argument will take some time, and it may not be structured effectively in the google doc now (it's a bit of a mess), so feel free to jump in and make it better.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:45 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130620/2bcfe320/attachment-0001.html>