[p2p-research] Dual Licensing of Research in Renewable Energy
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 11:47:23 CEST 2009
<In addition to financing, there is one final area that I have yet to
resolve. Does anyone know of an existing community of freelance researchers
and scientists who already work in the renewable energy sector? >
Sounds like a good question for the appropedia crowd?
Austin: I suggest you contact chris, vinay and smari about this,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Austin <brentley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello P2P Community,
> It's been several weeks since I last checked in. I've been working on the
> first half of the paper, gather information on the background of the energy
> crisis, my objectives for writing this paper, and the literature review. I
> just thought that I would send out an update...and potentially glean more
> information before moving forward with the actual data and analysis.
> I've made some revisions to the business model. In writing my literature
> review, I focused on 3 different areas of research (open innovation, open
> source, and stakeholder theory). Here is a condensed break-down of the
> The energy crisis will likely be resolved using a variety of approaches
> (subsidies, legislation, activism, etc) of which my paper touches on one:
> innovation. I define innovation as the creation and commercialization of
> new ideas and inventions. In effect, Inventors and Entrepreneurs co-exist
> to make successful solar panels, hydrogen cars, wind turbines, and countless
> other technologies/products we haven't even explored yet.
> For Entrepreneurs, open innovation (OI) is one of the best ways to
> commercialize new ideas. By sourcing and licensing R&D outside of their
> walls, they can benefit from new idea and insights. Innocentive is a prime
> example. When these ideas are abundant, easy to search, easy to license,
> and easy to incorporate, open innovation flourishes.
> For Inventors, open source (or peer-to-peer production, or a knowledge
> economy, or a scientific commons) is one of the best ways to create new
> inventions and ideas. Whereas open innovation is cooperative, open source
> is collaborative. There are many reasons to champion OS (including the
> ethics of "free" and "public"), but the emphasis on this paper is on OS'
> ability to speed invention….in essence, I stress the instrumental benefits
> rather than the normative ones.
> While open innovation requires ownership, OS typically typically avoids the
> privatization of publicly created products, making the two systems
> incompatible on the surface. However, bringing the production styles
> together can be accomplished using dual-licensing. In essence, the OS
> community will allow private firms to use publicly available information for
> commercial purposes IF these firms pay money back into the system via
> royalties. These royalties will help fuel future research in renewable
> Open Innovation and Open Source are set against stakeholder theory
> (instrumental stakeholder theory) in which firms are more successful when
> they balance the disparate needs of individual stakeholders. However, at
> its core, stakeholder theory places "shareholders" above all other
> stakeholders since the ultimate goal of almost every firm is profit. The
> needs of employees, suppliers, governments, etc are all means to an end. My
> paper argues for a different approach. Rather than start with a firm that
> assesses and prioritizes stakeholders, why not have stakeholders come
> together and design a firm (or a system) that meets their needs. In other
> words, let's not start under the assumption that the firm (and thus the
> investors) already exist…instead, let's work backwards…so as to ensure that
> the system/firm's mandate comes from innovation-driven stakeholders rather
> than from profit-seeking shareholders….essentially a non-profit company.
> This however presents one major challenge. In the absence of investors,
> how does the community of OS scientists and researchers cover the costs of
> expensive R&D. Some of this R&D can be broken up into modular form, making
> it more affordable. We have already seen this in many aspects of open
> manufacturing and open design. Other areas, however, are potentially too
> expensive for any individual to afford. Dual license payments can help keep
> the firm (or system) afloat once the project has already started, but how
> does the project actually get off the ground in the first place? Would
> donations work..and if so, how? Is there a way to do this without
> government assistance?
> In any event, here is a slightly revised business model for a fictional
> company called Green R&D:
> 1. Green R&D is non-profit company whose sole purpose is to assist with
> innovation. In addition to keeping a stable of paid scientists and
> researchers, Green R&D also oversees financing, budgeting, patent
> applications, and litigation. It essentially pays for the more expensive
> aspects of Renewable Energy research that freelance scientists might not be
> able to afford if they worked in more open source-style collaboration. It
> also assists with long-term planning, suppliers, contracts, etc.
> 1. All prototypes and research are placed under a GPL-style license.
> 1. The initial financing for Green R&D is still unknown.
> 2. Green R&D opens it findings to the public for contributions, thus
> benefiting from peer-to-peer production and input. Scientists, researchers,
> and laypeople around the world collaborate, adding to the growing pool of
> research. Whenever technically feasible, new improvements and discoveries
> are placed under the same GPL-style license.
> 3. Private firms may use this public information for its own purposes,
> but in doing so, it must pay a royalty.
> 1. The royalty would have to be carefully determined to minimize
> cheating while maximizing payments.
> 4. A volunteer watch group ensures compliance between privatized
> products and royalty payments.
> 1. I'm still working on the incentive structure for this watch group,
> although http://www.peertopatent.org/ offers some useful insights on
> how this might work.
> 2. I'm also still working on a way to properly measure royalty
> 5. Royalty payments go back to the Green R&D solely for the purpose
> of future research. There are no "profits" per se. Green R&D exists only
> to make renewable energy financing possible. The entire system is more of
> an innovation machine than it is a "business model." It helps brings
> Inventors and Entrepreneurs together if and when the former lacks sufficient
> capital to get started.
> In addition to financing, there is one final area that I have yet to
> resolve. Does anyone know of an existing community of freelance researchers
> and scientists who already work in the renewable energy sector? For some of
> my primary research, I need to talk to those who might potentially be
> involved with the above business model. I've already spoken with energy
> scientists from corporate firms and with P2P experts, but finding those in
> the middle (i.e. P2P energy scientists) has been difficult.
> Anyway, hope all is well. Thanks again for all the previous assistance you
> offered...and thanks in advance for any additional insights you might be
> able to provide.
> Take care P2P folks,
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch