Damian Brasher wrote:
> Hugo Mills wrote:
>
>> http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/patentbgone_inventor_mitc.html
>>
> Why do you think this could not work for the likes of say Dyson? I
> like/agree with the philosophy behind this though.
>
Hi Hugo, I'm having a tidy up and remember this straggler...
I have a few brief thoughts which may close this one or spark more list wide
discussion. The comparison here is made loosely between normal patents
(closed) and Open Source business models:
Open Source allows for lightweight production and distribution of goods, fast
wide ranging mega* market (*I just made that up) penetration and lightweight
protection of IPR. This facilitates simple and strong collaboration, fast
development cycle and fairer deal for the customer when acquiring goods. Yes,
there may be loss of business to those that cheat the licence model or to
fair competition. Fair competition make a better product and keeps us on our
toes and mega market penetration means that with a massive user base earning
money from support packages is possible. Dysan could never achieve the kind
of user base a good Open Source product does and therefore could never
generate a viable income just providing technical support packages and
selling it's products at cost. I'm sure there is a fine line to be crossed
somewhere at this point and a pile of other variables not taken into account.
I'm not an MBA:)
Damian
--
http://www.diap.org.uk - distributed archive storage system development.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
