Open source manufacturing: profitable and common


Those who object that the open source path to innovation is just giving away the store, and unprofitable, ignore the centuries of success and profitability of shunning expensive and unwieldy Intellectual Property schemes. The early car industry, as I and numerous others point out, adopted a “patent pool” early on to avoid unnecessary and costly (though profitable to lawyers) litigation. This patent pool essentially meant that all car companies in the pool would “donate” their IP to each other, rather than jealously protect it, so that innovation rather than patent “thickets” prevailed. Learning their lesson from innovation-hindering disputes in the early steam industry, and watching similar disputes slow innovation in aeronautics, the auto manufacturers who joined a patent pool agreed that profits could be made through innovating, building quality goods, and rewards could be reaped by all through a virtuous (and profitable) circle of sharing techniques rather than employing lawyers to guard them.

ALAM Patent Pool

Patent pools are not quite Open Source, but they are similar. Open Source short-circuits IP by revealing the technology or technique without seeking first any IP protection. Patent pools get the protection, then reveal and share it with an agreement not to litigate. But in a sense, the early patent pool in automotive innovation serves as a model for current attempts to innovate and profit through open source manufacturing.

This week’s example is Oomlout which makes open source robot kits, and instructs others (for free) about their methodology.

Oomlout's Robot Kits

Advertisements

About nanowares

Author, philosopher, attorney, and educator interested in science, technology, ethics, and freedom
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Open source manufacturing: profitable and common

  1. “Open Source short-circuits IP by revealing the technology or technique without seeking first any IP protection.”

    That’s not quite how it works. Open source hardware releases designs under an open source license. The foundation of this license is copyright. Others are permitted to copy and use design files to build hardware, provided that they release design files to improvements in the license under a similar open source license. That way design originators get to benefit from others’ improvements.

    This is great when the desired reward is access to improvements, but it doesn’t address the issue of paying the rent. Sure, design originators can manufacture and make money that way, but what if your real talent is just design?

  2. By the way, one of the best open hardware communities I’ve seen is http://www.thingiverse.com/ You can really see how designs are growing based on community collective improvement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s