Issues in proposal & new sources

Issues raised in proposal:

-- commons-based strategies for (i) developing and (ii) managing technology-based innovation

-- the economics of infrastructure resources

-- the economics and dynamics of university-based research and technology transfer

-- application of each of the above to a specific example: development of AETs

-- contrasts with strategies for developing and distributing new pharmaceuticals to developing countries (it's not clear to me what this has to do with the research proposal; you might consider dropping it altogether, since you already have a lot on your plate)

Read some core existing research in each of the top three areas above
- commons -- read Benkler's book The Wealth of Networks, and familiarize yourself with the work of Elinor Ostrom;
- infrastructure -- read a law review article in the Minnesota Law Review by Brett Frischmann
- on university-based tech transfer, take a look at a recent article in the Berkeley Technology Law Review by Sean O'Connor. Mark Lemley has also written something about this recently, online at ssrn.com rather than in print.

Revise the proposal to take out some of the rhetorical introduction about the environmental problems;
- the AET idea is best presented as a proof-of-concept application of the underlying theoretical framework.
- Describe what tech transfer does today, why it fails for certain kinds of research, what a better policy and strategy would be for that kind of research, and why AET is a good example of the kind of research for which that new policy and stratey is suited.

Duke & BIOS

a better analogy than the generic drug analogy may be to a commons-based licensing approach that has been proposed in the biotech area (a/k/a "open source biotech").

Prof. Arti Rai at Duke Law has written about this. http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/rai/

Some Austrailian academics are also working on this under the acronym "BIOS".

Beginnings of research.. a proposal for commons-based licensing of AET developed at universities

Research Proposal

Global climate change is a significant challenge which the entire world must face as the polar ice caps melt, ocean levels rise, weather patterns change and create catastrophic events like hurricanes and droughts. Part of what causes global climate change is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, from sources like fossil-fuel burning power plants and automobiles. The introduction and use of alternative energy technologies (AET) such as wind, solar and bio-fuels help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies are often patented or proprietary, and may not be developed to the extent that is necessary considering the public interest in preserving the global ecosystem. Under-development can be attributed to the cost of licensing patented inventions compared or a company owning a patent but not having an economic incentive to develop that invention.

One way to address the problem of AET availability is to encourage the use of a commons-based approach to technology transfer and licensing in universities. While some AET are developed and patented within corporations, many are developed during the university research. These inventions may then be patented and licensed to outside companies, or else the university may create a start-up company to commercialize the technology. The goal of developing AET should not be pure profit for single entities, but instead broad availability to encourage creating a sound infrastructure of AET.

The argument for AET availability is similar to that regarding genericization of patented drugs which are essential to public health in poor nations. The barriers to entry created by exclusivity-based pricing inhibit companies from marketing cheap drugs in poor nations. Universities should reduce these barriers to access by changing their licensing structure to allow freedom to operate agreements, so a generic drug producer can market lower-priced drugs. The AET situation is different than the generic drug problem because technology is not provided directly to consumers, but to companies which further develop the technology – such as improving the infrastructure for providing alternative energy to consumers.

Eliminating barriers to entry is still essential to ensuring access to technology, though. If university technology transfer is limited to giving rights to a patented AET to single entities to encourage its commercialization, traditional patent property rights will govern. The single entity has the right to frustrate market entry by enforcing its patent rights against others. If a university uses a commons-based approach to AET licensing, it could allow many more entities to participate in developing products based on the AET. The commons-based approach is distinct from not patenting the AET though: the AET is patented, but licenses can be structured so various entities may develop products based on the technology without fear of infringing. Maintaining patent protection for the AET creates a basis for coordination, and will draw together many complementary users and encourage negotiation to develop commercial products.

My research would investigate developing a commons-based licensing system. Once a feasible system is developed, I want to create a proposal to submit to research-centered universities to encourage adoption of the scheme and participate in its implementation.

KSR - Supreme Court patent law decision

This is an article written by patent attorney Christopher G. Wolfe about the recent KSR decision, which greatly affects how courts make determinations of patentability.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette article

the article is about attorneys in the energy field - specifically alternative energy

Links from CNET

Links to CNET 'green' articles

A sample article: about tech veterans

Initial

Hi! This is a test run to try and get some Alt-energy ideas off the ground.