I’ve gone the other way. I’m starting up a robotics non profit that gives everything away for free and solicits donations for support. [1] We’re bootstrapped by a philanthropist who wants to see this become a reality.
With this model, people all over the world can benefit from our work. If we tried to go the route with patents and traditional funding, we’d end up designing a farming robot which only works well for large farms in California and would be too expensive for most of the people we want to serve.
Patent protection in many ways slows down innovation. 3D printer development was pretty static for the first 15 years and only advanced significantly after the patents expired. Then people all over the world contributed ideas on how to make better 3D printers for cheaper, and in ten years the price went from $25,000 to $250. Under patent the price only ever dropped from $50,000 to $25,000.
So you can see how open innovation produces a lot of value. The “problem” with this is that the value is hard to capture. This is what Prusa is experiencing today. Your solution is to lock down information harder and use the threat of legal action to restrict the spread of ideas. Unfortunately this creates a system where people in wealthy countries are constantly doing engineering for things which could benefit people in poorer countries, if only they were cheaper. Clones allow for cheaper versions to be made locally in the poorer countries where their labor costs are lower. But with widespread patent harmonization most countries can’t legally clone important goods, so they go without.
What we can do in the wealthy countries, instead of locking down ideas, is to explore new way of organizing our companies and projects. Countless people make a living asking for donations on YouTube. We see more engineering projects supported by this model, including Godot ($15k per month in donations) and Blender ($185k per month in donations).
This kind of open innovation can allow engineers to pay their living while producing products that are open for all. Imagine how much benefit the rest of the world would see if all of our MRI machines, manufacturing equipment, and other vital technology was open source?
For me it is imperative to find a way to make it work. Abandoning this would to me mean that I have failed those people that need my skills most. Those whose lives would be forever changed with increased access to advanced technology. I can not lock down my work and keep it out of their hands. They deserve better.
With this model, people all over the world can benefit from our work. If we tried to go the route with patents and traditional funding, we’d end up designing a farming robot which only works well for large farms in California and would be too expensive for most of the people we want to serve.
Patent protection in many ways slows down innovation. 3D printer development was pretty static for the first 15 years and only advanced significantly after the patents expired. Then people all over the world contributed ideas on how to make better 3D printers for cheaper, and in ten years the price went from $25,000 to $250. Under patent the price only ever dropped from $50,000 to $25,000.
So you can see how open innovation produces a lot of value. The “problem” with this is that the value is hard to capture. This is what Prusa is experiencing today. Your solution is to lock down information harder and use the threat of legal action to restrict the spread of ideas. Unfortunately this creates a system where people in wealthy countries are constantly doing engineering for things which could benefit people in poorer countries, if only they were cheaper. Clones allow for cheaper versions to be made locally in the poorer countries where their labor costs are lower. But with widespread patent harmonization most countries can’t legally clone important goods, so they go without.
What we can do in the wealthy countries, instead of locking down ideas, is to explore new way of organizing our companies and projects. Countless people make a living asking for donations on YouTube. We see more engineering projects supported by this model, including Godot ($15k per month in donations) and Blender ($185k per month in donations).
This kind of open innovation can allow engineers to pay their living while producing products that are open for all. Imagine how much benefit the rest of the world would see if all of our MRI machines, manufacturing equipment, and other vital technology was open source?
For me it is imperative to find a way to make it work. Abandoning this would to me mean that I have failed those people that need my skills most. Those whose lives would be forever changed with increased access to advanced technology. I can not lock down my work and keep it out of their hands. They deserve better.
[1] https://community.twistedfields.com/t/january-2023-update-ne...