« Wealth of Networks - new book | Main | Future of trade talks »
April 18, 2006
Benefits of Openness
The Committee on Economic Development has released a new report Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation: Harnessing the Benefits of Openness. The report, written by the CED's Digital Connections Council chaired by Paul Horn of IBM with e-commerce expert Elliot Maxwell as project director, touts the "commons" approach:
The benefits of openness are becoming more apparent and are likely to grow as we learn to utilize the new capabilities enabled by information and communications technologies. These benefits are challenging our conventional wisdom about innovation and the incentives needed to stimulate it. And, they are suggesting new ways of acting based on the special characteristics of the digital world, which are far different than those that developed based on what we knew of the physical world.
Years ago, the theory of the tragedy of the commons was developed in economic literature. It argued that users of a commons (such as a grazing field shared by an entire community), who had no particular or individual stake in the success of the commons, might act in such a way as to maximize their own short-term interests at the long-term expense of the commons and the community that used it. Thus, the actions of a few could harm the interests of many, and of society as a whole.
The digital world provides an opportunity to think of the commons differently. The use of the digital commons by everyone does not necessarily exclude its use by anyone. To the extent that new information and communications technologies allow more and more people to contribute their own genius, the digital world offers new opportunities from the commons and for the commons.
Openness is not an overriding moral value that must prevail in every circumstance. But, its extraordinary capability to harness the collective intelligence of our world requires us to consider its implications carefully, nurture it where possible, and avoid efforts to foreclose it without compelling reason. We should not miss the opportunity to harvest the benefits openness might bring.
The recommendations included the following--
Concerning open standards:
Because of the advantages of open standards, the Council recommends that governments encourage the development and use of open standards through processes as open to participation and contribution as possible. The Council believes that the participation of civil society would be beneficial in the formation of standards with important social consequences. The Council also recommends that the results of government-supported research be readily available for inclusion in open standards, as they have been in areas such as grid computing.
Concerning patenting and standards:
The Council, therefore, recommends that incentives be created to induce the early disclosure of intellectual property claims and that consideration be given to progressively limiting recovery by a firm asserting infringement, as time elapses from the adoption of a standard.
Concerning open source software:
The Council believes that, rather than replacing one another, proprietary software and opensource software will co-exist, with each playing an appropriate role in the information and communication technologies (ICT) environment. The Council opposes any requirement forcing governments to make purchasing decisions based on the licensing system used. It recommends that the U.S. government not advocate purchases based on any particular licensing scheme--proprietary or open. The Council believes there are certain critical functions of government that should be conducted solely with interoperable technology; in these critical areas, no citizen should be required to use the hardware or software of any particular vendor.
This does not mean that only open-source software would be available. Proprietary software vendors choosing to sell in these markets, however, would be required to provide sufficiently open interfaces, so as to allow others to interoperate with their product. The use of open standards and royalty-free licensing are particularly important in these areas.
The Council recommends that the United States support such interoperability requirements in international procurement as well. The Council also recommends that international agreements entered into by the United States regarding intellectual property should reflect the nation's historically balanced intellectual property regime reflecting the interests of both first and follow on innovators.
Concerning open innovation:
In order to foster open innovation, the Council recommends not only that the NIH should continue their efforts to expand the dissemination of the research they support, but also that other federally funded, unclassified research should be made broadly available. Consistent with the position it has taken in its earlier reports, the Council recommends that any legislation or regulation regarding intellectual property rights be weighed with a presumption against the granting of new rights. The burden of proof should be on proponents of new rights to demonstrate with rigorous analysis the necessity of such an extension, because of the benefits to society of further innovation through greater access to technology. Finally, the Council suggests that the National Science Foundation (NSF) fund research into alternative compensation methods, similar to those created to facilitate the growth of radio, to reward creators of digital information products and accommodate the changes brought about by the digitization and growth of the Internet.
Explicit in these recommendations is the view that proprietary rights not be allowed to trump the openness necessary for technological development. The report uses phrases such as "burden of proof should be on proponents of new rights to demonstrate with rigorous analysis the necessity of such an extension" and "international agreements entered into by the United States regarding intellectual property should reflect the nation's historically balanced intellectual property regime reflecting the interests of both first and follow on innovators."
As the Congress grapples with patent reform, let us hope that this report is widely read.
(Thanks to Blogzilla: Harnessing the benefits of openness for pointing this one out.)
Posted by Ken Jarboe at April 18, 2006 1:20 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.athenaalliance.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/660