A little old (april), but a great discussion from WAMU on open problem solving / open source innovation with:
http://wamu.org/programs/kn/07/04/10.php#12572
Keith, it started on such a great note, but as I listened on, I grew less and less interested, and over time, even angry..! When InnoCentive? talked about transfering IP rights to the company that asked the question, I was furious. Yikes! I am not happy that the company is helping to extract rights from the public. – LionKimbro
Hi Lion - I wasn’t too psyched about this either, but I’m really glad the show highlighted this issue. Rights and ownership are often overlooked when people are contributing to participatory systems like this one. What Innocentive does wrong, we can do better.
I’m not convinced that transferring IP ownership is always a bad thing if that’s what’s openly offered for sale in the first place (rather than hidden behind a ‘contest’). For example, there are IP intermediary companies that open up the ability for regular folks to buy and sell IP in intermediary markets. Without IP intermediary markets (and presuming our current, questionable IP system), it is prohibitive for regular people to benefit from protecting their IP.
I think concept of intellectual property cannot be substantiated.
I can understand some agreements about use of knowledge and blueprints, for example, but calling it “property” is a historical hack that really messes with our minds, and makes us think about things in dangerous and harmful ways.
The question is: “What kinds of agreements should we have about ideas, insights, creativity, secrets, names, …” …and so on.