This is a good point, and I'd add the most intriguing aspect of the current patent crisis - that the METHOD, the PROCESS is often patented. This is very difficult to overcome, but it must be if we wish to see social justice and innovation - and good business - mentioned in the same sentence.
The coordinated commissioning of new technology is one way forward. While hardware is indeed important, I think the most challenging part is the patented methods and procedures. Trivial for academics to repeat; impossible for small business.
Also, the thicket of patents and overlapping claims is a deeply frustrating and challenging issue. A single key process may be protected by literally hundreds of patent claims by many different owners. How can low-margin activities like agriculture and food security ever negotiate these? This is one thing driving us - drop the transaction costs, make real creativity into small markets possible.
Actually, the issue is taken very seriously by the Forum - and they invited participation in this topic, and yes, there is a very strong focus on 'making money'. But in the current Mexican Standoff between the public and corporations can do anything, it can illustrate that there are new ways of doing business than can be productive.
I don't think IBM is suing SCO to show its Marxist tendencies. Open source / open access really is a new way to stimulate an otherwise torpid industry.
Focusing on developing profitable 'applications' while allowing many diverse low-margin innovations to occur makes very good business sense, whereas the current stalemate does not.
Can I interject a couple of helpful points here? I'm new to the Slash/Dot community so my knowledge of the etiquette of this forum is limited - if I transgress, please excuse.
In my work (which initiated this thread) I'm trying hard to make a distinction between open access used for LICIT vs. ILLICIT purposes. The argument about 'won't all that knowledge/technology be available to TERRORISTS!' should be viewed with some reality check. Patents - by their nature - are fully disclosing to ANYONE of precisely how to make/do an invention. They must be. It is only those people/entities working on LEGAL use of these technologies - and reducing them to practice to add value (social, economic) to peoples' lives who must face the unfortunate constipation that these tool patents present. Anyone having no interest in LEGAL implementation, but rather ILLEGAL use of such information will be actually empowered by the patent literature! This seems counterintuitive perhaps, but ironically it is true.
Making the distinction between licit and illicit use also allows more clear thinking about how to promote 'good' (meaning societally accepted or even required) application of biology. Basically its a matter of allowing decentralized and truly democratised problem solving, whether it be in agriculture, environment or public health.
Open Access - which we're trying to develop really is different than open source, and we're trying hard to model these differences now. For one, most biological organisms are easy to 'decompile' as sequencing the DNA is trivial and one can then 're-invent' many such innovations in a (admittedly well equipped) garage. But its not legal, and the world's food production community (farmers!) have to operate in a legally constrained world of commerce, even the smallest farmers in the less developed world.
What we're working towards is very distinct from 'freedom of information access'. The latter is laudable. And important. And completely and devastatingly easy to hijack. I would say all the information in the world, and a dollar, gets you a cup of coffee. The new battleground - silent but deadly - is the 'enabling technologies' for converting information (experimental results, DNA sequence, whatever) into a tangible public/private good. These 'conversion' tools are being routinely infringed every day in every laboratory in universities around the world. There is no research exemption in US (or Australia) Universities, so the illusion propagates that R&D is unfettered by patents...but in fact, the 'D' is absolutely controlled by patent proliferation, and restricting access to commercial use of these enabling technologies is one of the most insidious hijacking of public money, public spirit and public creativity.
The only ones that can use that (legally) are often very heavily capitalized and often monolithic entities. Not many in this community would view that as favorable?
Anyway, just a couple of points to add to the discussion. But in biotechnology, the focus of our work is more on the equivalent (in your world) of programming languages (at all levels) and operating systems rather than applications.
Thanks for thinking and talking about this stuff.
Richard Jefferson
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good point, and I'd add the most intriguing aspect of the current patent crisis - that the METHOD, the PROCESS is often patented. This is very difficult to overcome, but it must be if we wish to see social justice and innovation - and good business - mentioned in the same sentence. The coordinated commissioning of new technology is one way forward. While hardware is indeed important, I think the most challenging part is the patented methods and procedures. Trivial for academics to repeat; impossible for small business. Also, the thicket of patents and overlapping claims is a deeply frustrating and challenging issue. A single key process may be protected by literally hundreds of patent claims by many different owners. How can low-margin activities like agriculture and food security ever negotiate these? This is one thing driving us - drop the transaction costs, make real creativity into small markets possible.
Actually, the issue is taken very seriously by the Forum - and they invited participation in this topic, and yes, there is a very strong focus on 'making money'. But in the current Mexican Standoff between the public and corporations can do anything, it can illustrate that there are new ways of doing business than can be productive. I don't think IBM is suing SCO to show its Marxist tendencies. Open source / open access really is a new way to stimulate an otherwise torpid industry. Focusing on developing profitable 'applications' while allowing many diverse low-margin innovations to occur makes very good business sense, whereas the current stalemate does not.
Can I interject a couple of helpful points here? I'm new to the Slash/Dot community so my knowledge of the etiquette of this forum is limited - if I transgress, please excuse. In my work (which initiated this thread) I'm trying hard to make a distinction between open access used for LICIT vs. ILLICIT purposes. The argument about 'won't all that knowledge/technology be available to TERRORISTS!' should be viewed with some reality check. Patents - by their nature - are fully disclosing to ANYONE of precisely how to make/do an invention. They must be. It is only those people/entities working on LEGAL use of these technologies - and reducing them to practice to add value (social, economic) to peoples' lives who must face the unfortunate constipation that these tool patents present. Anyone having no interest in LEGAL implementation, but rather ILLEGAL use of such information will be actually empowered by the patent literature! This seems counterintuitive perhaps, but ironically it is true. Making the distinction between licit and illicit use also allows more clear thinking about how to promote 'good' (meaning societally accepted or even required) application of biology. Basically its a matter of allowing decentralized and truly democratised problem solving, whether it be in agriculture, environment or public health. Open Access - which we're trying to develop really is different than open source, and we're trying hard to model these differences now. For one, most biological organisms are easy to 'decompile' as sequencing the DNA is trivial and one can then 're-invent' many such innovations in a (admittedly well equipped) garage. But its not legal, and the world's food production community (farmers!) have to operate in a legally constrained world of commerce, even the smallest farmers in the less developed world. What we're working towards is very distinct from 'freedom of information access'. The latter is laudable. And important. And completely and devastatingly easy to hijack. I would say all the information in the world, and a dollar, gets you a cup of coffee. The new battleground - silent but deadly - is the 'enabling technologies' for converting information (experimental results, DNA sequence, whatever) into a tangible public/private good. These 'conversion' tools are being routinely infringed every day in every laboratory in universities around the world. There is no research exemption in US (or Australia) Universities, so the illusion propagates that R&D is unfettered by patents...but in fact, the 'D' is absolutely controlled by patent proliferation, and restricting access to commercial use of these enabling technologies is one of the most insidious hijacking of public money, public spirit and public creativity. The only ones that can use that (legally) are often very heavily capitalized and often monolithic entities. Not many in this community would view that as favorable? Anyway, just a couple of points to add to the discussion. But in biotechnology, the focus of our work is more on the equivalent (in your world) of programming languages (at all levels) and operating systems rather than applications. Thanks for thinking and talking about this stuff. Richard Jefferson