Researchers to unlock codes for open source green energy

it sounded good until you read...

“Just as we learned in software that Microsoft was not enough -- and Microsoft is now a better company with open source "

“We are starting a social movement and none of it can work without the patent system,” Jefferson says. “Genetic technologies need to be a public movement. If they are owned by only corporations, we will never have that.”

well....it is about open source

Hi Anonymous,

I'm quoted in the article extensively, but there were some serious hiccups in the editing, (which derived from telephone interviews, and to the journalist's dismay, I speak quickly....). Also, these quotes were not vetted by me for accuracy.

For instance: what I would have said (and many times have said publicly) ..."Microsoft is now a better company because of the competition from open source". I think you would admit that that statement has some merit.

So while I agree that this statement looks silly as printed, I hope this clarification may cause some reconsideration by you of the merits of sharing core tools and platforms in energy.

re: Your next comment about the contradiction. Open Source depends on using intellectual property rights to impose social contracts and covenants of behaviour. Without copyright, its impossible to have the GPL, BSD licenses, Apache, you name it. All the impactful FOSS (note 'F' also) are protected from misappropriation and embedded in a social innovation ecosystem by using licenses. Licenses rely on intellectual property rights to work. I wish it were not so, but it is.

Without copyright (which is provided upon creation of the code/content with no application) it is up to the creator (coder, writer etc) to decide how to grant permission to use that creation. Creative Commons has been a brilliant contribution by providing a group of 'flavours' of licenses that achieve a range of goals (attribution, share-alike, commercial, etc). Open Source has developed a series of 'certified' (OSI) licenses that similarly provide a range of restrictions (and they ARE restrictions) and impose a range of responsibilities on the users of licensed software.

This is sensible, and it serves to harness a transparent suite of responsibilities with the right to make use of a creation.

When one is talking about technologies that fall under hundreds, or even thousands of patents, we have a much more complex situation. Patents on (e.g.) genetic technologies for algae are already in the hundreds, and will be in the thousands soon. Many if not most of these patented technologies will create thickets of complicated rights that make progress very unclear, expensive and thus limited to big players who can afford the burdens, but who will be unlikely to create a competitive and open platform that is shared.

Technologies covered by patents - like software protected by copyright - don't have to be used only by "Corporations that WANT TO OWN SOMETHING". In fact, most patents are held by small-to-medium enterprise and public players. It is up to all players to decide how best to grant rights to use these technologies.

With forward-looking policy and practice, even some big players can see that its counterproductive to exclude small and nimble innovators from contributing to solutions impacting real shared problems like climate change, global health or food security. But how? We have an opaque, expensive and exclusionary regime of IP (and innovation intelligence).

We're arguing and working towards a) using informatics and public platforms (including open, curated 'landscapes') to render the system public and more open - especially with regard to how a single 'piece' of technology in a patent fits into the whole puzzle, and b) using new types of licensing we've explored for some years to provide cost-free access by ALL players to the toolkits of innovation in key areas of social and environmental need, and to leverage their responsibilities with license covenants that try to forge a Commons of Capability in which users are protected from the formation of thickets and extraction of onerous terms or rents from the process.

This is very evocative of open source in the software world. The biggest success stories in open source are not in applications (though there are some good ones). The biggest are in low-end of the stack. Operating systems (Linux, BSD) servers (Apache), database (MySQL, etc) and of course programming languages themselves (Perl, finally Java, etc).

So we see a convergence of opportunity. If the foundational 'toolkit' of innovation is shared, made 'safe' by the terms of a legally enforceable license (as is true in OS licensing such as BSD, GPL) then any player with good ideas and commitment can use these tools in diverse ways to solve problems.

The same is true - compellingly so, in my opinion - about re-creating public commons and oversight of core technology needed to solve hunger, disease, environmental degradation. Share the tools and platforms (and standards) and encourage diverse applications and creative solutions.

Sorry to be long winded, but this article didn't really portray my thoughts clearly and I regret it. The journo was really good and asked all the right questions, but its hard to control transcripts and edits.

Check out our bios.org and cambia.org as well as the patentlens.net websites. We've been fighting for public good for over twenty years in this space and I - like you - feel that bettering the human condition really IS the focus.

raj