Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 06, 2021

Google v. Oracle Supreme Court Decision

 The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday in the case Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. that Google would prevail in Oracle’s 2010 lawsuit regarding Google’s use of Java in the Android operating system. Citing that it was “fair use” for Google to have copied the API (Application Programming Interface) of the Java Programming Language. I don’t think that the Justices were fully aware of the consequences of their decision and stated categorically that their assumption was that Oracle’s copyright of Java was valid. And therefore their ruling only applied to the API and did not violate their understanding of copyright. I believe that this separation of copyright and API is valid and will hold copyright holders to the same rights and privileges they’ve always had. The consequences of this decision will have significant implications towards software developers, developments in general, software in general and the software user overall. An important consideration in this discussion is that most object oriented software code is freely accessible, subject to the license requirements upon download. Signing the license and downloading it are your agreement to uphold these requirements which state that the Java Programming Language is free to use, however, any revenues generated from those derivative works would be subject to a royalty payable to Oracle. Oracle has received payments from every other developer on this basis but not Google. 

It came down to what the definition of an API is and what is it for. In the past programming code was procedural and all aspects of the software application including menu items, features and variables were all included in the one holistic software code base. Think of the computer just processing through a loop of code from beginning to end and then starting over and over. The issue was when software became more capable and usable bugs creeped in and caused the application itself to become unusable. Limiting the upside in terms of software developments capabilities. Java built upon the concept of object oriented programming that was introduced a few decades earlier. It was conceptually that each of the components of a program were broken down to the individual features and implemented within one object. Think of building a program with Lego bricks. Therefore isolating the bugs and issues to the objects that were unable to function as desired. Each object is unaware of any other object's existence however can access other objects capabilities through methods and other features of the programming language. Packaging of a comprehensive feature set of objects into a framework for others is one of the desired capabilities of object oriented programming. The calling of Java is write once, run anywhere. The redundancy of having to rewrite the same code over and over again in procedural programming was a major hindrance to the development, quality and speed of the deliverability of software applications. 

Object reusability became the focus of all developers. If you could access a framework that conducted the necessary work you needed, all you needed to do was access that framework’s API. The API provided the doorway to the published code of the framework that someone spent a significant amount of time and money developing. The code had become tried and tested, was generally what was needed and because it was object oriented, was extendable by any object based developers, and here’s the necessary requirement, through the license of the frameworks copyright holder. The API they were providing was a doorway to facilitate ease of use and understanding in how to use the framework. What the Supreme Court did yesterday was to effectively eliminate the copyright protection on the API. Saying Google’s use of the API was fair use is ridiculous when the Justices also indicate that Android had provided over $42 billion in revenue to Google. This is wholly inconsistent with the concept of fair use. Fair use doesn’t permit the generation of revenues off others' works. The API doorway will now be effectively closed. It will be replaced with a drawbridge, and a moat will be built around the framework for any developer to enter. Partial compensation will probably be necessary as a down payment to sign the license and access the framework. Licensing will be far stricter. 

One of the consequences of this is the object oriented programming languages will cease to be as effective in developing software efficiently, effectively and affordably. Royalties will be higher to access the frameworks and content of those who own valuable copyrighted material. Think Microsoft, IBM, Google and all of the other software companies that were proponents of Google in this action. Content will be king and everyone will have to pay dearly for it. Developers work will be more constrained as access to the necessary frameworks will be a legal process that precedes their access and possibly have to pick through the copyrighted materials themselves to find what it is they’re looking for and how to use it. Ease of use through the API isn’t available. 

Oracle is our technological provider. We use the entire Oracle product suite as the technology base of the Preliminary Specification. This includes Java, as well as many other products written in Java. It is reasonable to assume that much of this code may also be licensed from other software providers who are allowing licensed access to Oracle for its use through their API. I anticipate this will affect our development of the Preliminary Specification in detrimental ways. As the copyright holder of the Preliminary Specification we own that content and it is unaffected by this decision. We will not be publishing any API’s at any point. We also have expectations that our costs will escalate due to the superfluous legal necessities this unnecessarily causes. Our ability to access API’s for our convenience will be a doorway that is no longer open to us. And as object based developers this will have a time and monetary impact on our development. 

It is therefore at this time. A time in which we are asserting maximum pressure on the producers for them to act and fund the Preliminary Specification. That an amendment to our budget is necessary. We are therefore adding an additional $1 billion cost to the development costs as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. Based on the allocation of our margins this will require an incremental $3 billion be added to our budget for a total of $15 billion U.S. I am also cautioning, as the effects of this decision become more clear, our budget may be further clarified and amended. 

The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations, everywhere and always. Setting the foundation for profitable North American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects have published a white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” that captures the vision of the Preliminary Specification and our actions. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. Anyone can contact me at 713-965-6720 in Houston or 587-735-2302 in Calgary, or email me here

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Access to Intellectual Property


Since my return from our sabbatical we have noted some of the finer points of the Intellectual Property that supports People, Ideas & Objects. In “Copyright Notice” we reflected that the costs to producers of involving themselves with software providers that did not have the supporting research to support their software; may end up costing that producer substantially. And that the larger software vendors, such as Oracle and SAP, would not be interested in contaminating their IP with other vendors who do not have the associated research and IP to their software. What this has shown is that it is a potentially difficult and tragic world for any producer that tries to circumvent any of the owners of any IP.

We also demonstrated in “Copyright License” how this community sources the financial resources for its long term support. And how those within the People, Ideas & Objects community access the IP they need to provide their service based offerings to their producer clients.

I feel this discussion is important as we are at the beginning of a new way of working in the 21st Century. One in which the tools, skills and resources that people have at their disposal are different then what they have been in the past. I think in the very near future the basic tool box of the average person working in the oil and gas industry will have to include access to some form of Intellectual Property (IP). This IP will be how they qualify for jobs, and will also be a critical element of how they earn their living.

We are beginning to see the enhanced role of Intellectual Property in today's marketplace with the litigation over the iPad and iPhone and who can sell similar devices. It is my opinion that Hewlett Packard's Board of Directors pulled the Touchpad off the market after only 7 weeks after realizing that their patent portfolio could not defend against claim by Apple.

In the future access to IP will be available to people in one of the following three forms.

Direct ownership of Intellectual Property. 
This will be the most difficult method to attain Intellectual Property. Not only will this require an original idea but also the costly and time consuming research necessary to develop the idea into a usable form. Rarely do we see these types of ownership occur.

Access to IP via License. 
This is a more common form of access, however it still involves some investment on behalf of the individuals. The licensee has to invest the time and effort necessary to build their service based offering. This business offering may be as a sole proprietor or involve many people, either way, as with all businesses, it requires time, effort and some times financial investments to build the clients and capabilities. These are the types of business leaders that I am primarily interested in when I talk about both the user base and the Community of Independent Service Providers.

Employment through a firm that owns or licenses IP. 
These are the people that are employed through firms that are mentioned in the above two categories. Employees of the owner or licensee of the IP, that although these people are not licensed directly, they have indirect access through their employers license. These people form part of the owners or licensee’s capabilities in providing the software development and service offerings to the producers.

People, Ideas & Objects (PI&O) software and independent service providers will require access to the IP in order to conduct their jobs. This is a fact. Those without access to the IP will not be provided with the opportunity to work for the producers. Simply they won’t be able to log-in or be able to access the community, PI&O, or producer systems, data or information. Therefore members of this community, who will be licensed in some manner mentioned above, will have access to the Intellectual Property necessary to undertake their jobs.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Summary of our Budget Discussions


So ends our quick discussion on some of the points of our budget. Large in size though our budget may be, I think we can all agree that the scope and scale of the People, Ideas & Objects (PI&O) application, along with the need for that application in the marketplace, are needed today. Anyone proposing to build an application that begins to solve the problems that the industry faces will need to address the budget requirements that are of this scale.

People, Ideas & Objects have proposed a reasonable Revenue Model to raise the financial resources to meet these budget requirements. It is a fair and equitable model that provides benefits to those that participate early. After all early participation is where the real benefits lay.

We have shown how the copyright has the ability to ensure success of this project by ensuring that there will be no knock-off software developments siphoning financial resources off of this development. That the copyright enables the industry to focus all of its resources on this one software development and ensure that it is a highly engineered and focused on delivering a successful application.

How unique attributes of geographic regions, like Canadian royalty and oil sands requirements, can still be handled through the Preliminary Specification. That large software development costs for unique areas does not necessarily preclude producers from participating in the PI&O software development activities.

People, Ideas & Objects have benefited from the maturation in Information Technology and will continue to do so. The revolution in development tools and methodologies have brought our cost estimates in line with what is possible, our delivery times into the realm of truly surprising and the quality of our deliverables into the surreal. We stand at a very important point in time.

Lastly the time is now for the community to form and begin the Preliminary Specification. Our time-lines, start and finish dates depend on securing our budget for the Preliminary Specification. We have budgeted $100 million for this task and expect that the community will have significant influence in the determination of their time-lines. More patience is what is needed, but the time for everyone to act is now.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Budget, Copyright and Success


Adding to last weeks discussion of how the copyright is used to support the assessments to the producers and enables the users to innovate freely within the community. Today I want to talk about the benefits of the copyright with respect to the budget. With a $1 - 2 billion budget for software development. Producers should seek comfort in the fact that only one software development will be licensed. People, Ideas & Objects will not have look-alike software development projects springing up and diluting our effort. Multiplying the industries software development costs with multiple instances of the same developments. This post explains how the copyright ensures the resources of the industry remain focused on one solution.

The basis of competition in the software development business, as I have stated here before, has to be on Intellectual Property (IP). To provide a solution that initially provides unique functionality lasts only minutes in terms of a competitive offering. This limited form of competitiveness ends up diluting the original investors financial investment, their innovative-ness in bringing a solution to the market, and has become the sole basis of how most of the software developers try to compete in the oil and gas marketplace today. This may seem like a benefit to the oil and gas producer, however, I would suggest they have a good look around.

Nothing substantial in terms of scope or investment has been undertaken in the ERP software development for oil and gas for almost 30 years. To approach the oil and gas market on the basis of an enduring competitive advantage would be the only reasonable approach to the market. That is why I have taken the strong position, in terms of Intellectual Property, that I have. However, as we can see, there are advantages to taking this strong position on IP for the producers themselves. That advantage is the focused software developments on one solution producing highly engineered solutions that meet the needs of the marketplace, and are not diluted by multiple demands for the types of resources that a software development project of this scope and scale demands.

I am not suggesting that there won’t be solutions that compete with People, Ideas & Objects in the marketplace. What I am asserting is that there won’t be any based on using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct. To compete, what someone would have to do is to generate their own research, outside the areas of where I have conducted my research, and develop their own solution. This process took me 8 years and if someone where to start today they could probably finish this research by 2020.

The fact of the matter is that the oil and gas producers have fewer choices in the future as to who provides their ERP software systems. One thing is for certain, software providers will have to ensure that the copyright and IP that is provided is as sound and secure as that which is provided by People, Ideas & Objects. To successfully compete in the marketplace today demands this level of commitment to the marketplace, and eliminates the fly-by-night providers who ultimately only siphon off the energy industries focus and financial resources on software development.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Copyright License

On Wednesday of this week we discussed the copyright notice that was issued to the producer firms. This post deals with the politics of the copyright license and how the end users, developers, members of the Community of Independent Service Providers and those generally needing to be involved in the application have access to the Intellectual Property (IP) that makes up the research, copyright and software developments of mine, Paul Cox, as licensed to People, Ideas & Objects (PI&O).

Two key questions that have to be solved in this project is firstly, how is the greater community supported. And the second question is; how do we ensure that everyone is able to innovate without any legal impediment, and have free access to the intellectual property that makes up People, Ideas & Objects IP. Two difficult and important questions that this blog post will answer.

Answer to question 1
The answer to the first question of how this community will be supported is of course by money. That is the only way in which a long-term, difficult project such as this can survive. No one can be asked to put in the effort necessary on a volunteer basis as that will begin with a bang and fade at a critical time. Only with the appropriate means to source the financial resources to support the community through out the life of the project will this project be successful. And being successful is the only manner in which we will be able to attract the people that we need in order to make the project ultimately successful.

So the question remains how is the project sustained financially. I as the owner of the intellectual property have the sole right to assess the oil and gas producers the fees and penalties, as noted in the Revenue Model, that will sustain these communities. Payment of those fees by the producer is the price they pay for participation in the community. Individuals are free to participate as they wish. In fact they are paid for their approved efforts. Producers must pay their fees in order to participate and have their specific needs addressed, and ultimately use the software. I then in turn use that money to support the community and develop the software based on the budget that the community agrees to. If the community requires a larger budget, then the $ / barrel of oil equivalent assessment to the producers will rise or fall based on the size of the number of participating producers who have subscribed to People, Ideas & Objects.

Answer to question 2
As to how the innovation and creative solutions are developed within the community. This work can not be obstructed by the IP that is the basis of People, Ideas & Objects offerings. It is through the license provided to those that work within the community that provides them with the opportunity to work with the IP without concern for the legal consequences normally associated when dealing with IP.

This license grants unrestricted access to my IP and generates service fees for yourself, I only assess the producers for software and software development fees. In turn any innovations or developments of IP are added back to my IP which in turn then become available to everyone. This eliminates any potential cross licensing and trolling by individuals within the community, which would make the development and innovation of the software and services secondary objectives. Licensees within the community have a right to generate service revenues in an unencumbered fashion in a competitive marketplace. This provides producers, individuals and society with the optimal solution for dealing with the underlying intellectual property of this project.

The following is a general comment about the means of competing in the Information and Communication Technology (I&CT) marketplace. There is much discussion about the new versions of Apple software products and the stepping on some of their developers toes. The overt development of features that have been provided by small software providers, by larger vendors such as Apple is something we have seen many times before. The group with the fattest wallet usually wins these contests. To compete on the basis of a defined software feature set is a fools game. Unless of course you have the fattest wallet. What is needed to win in the 21st century is a new basis of competitive strategy, and that is on the basis of IP. You must have an idea that is unique that defines your product differently in the marketplace. With People, Ideas & Objects that of course is using the Joint Operating Committee. Licensees within the People, Ideas & Objects community have access to the IP that enables them to compete in services based on using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Copyright Notice

Politics, can’t live with it, can’t live with out it. This post is about the political realities around the use of copyright in the oil and gas industry. Specifically the copyright that I hold in the research around using the Joint Operating Committee. There are two key points that need to be considered, again, as there seems to be some belief in the marketplace that actions taken by industry members are not subject to the political or legal realities of copyright law.

First of all let me restate the copyright notice. Look at any and all blog posts and knols that contain any of my writings and you will see the copyright for these published works. These are all based on the original idea of using the Joint Operating Committee which originates in my September 2003 research proposal to industry. Now on with the politics.

Producers management and specifically the C class executives, will not wish to "break the (copyright) laws" by using any other software that does not comply with my copyright. This isn’t in a producers best interest due to the fact that it could be financially costly for them to proceed with the development, implementation or use of any other software that violates this copyright and therefore would be unusable. The financial costs of these activities, the time lost in implementing them and the potential loss of further time when the software would not be available for use could be severely detrimental to the producer firm. The software marketplace could be an organizational graveyard for the unaware or careless management.

The second area where intellectual property can be politically disruptive to a producer is when dealing with the hardware, software and services of major vendors like SAP, IBM and Oracle. They have no interest in diluting the legal value of their assets by belittling or diluting their assets by contaminating them with software that is not supported by associated research. That is to say they live and die by the value of copyright and have as much interest as I do in seeing that my copyright is upheld. It in fact supports their copyrights indirectly. They also have no interest in contaminating their IP with IP that may be in direct breach of someone else’s IP, and therefore indirectly becoming party to a breach. It was with this in mind that I informed these firms of my copyright, based on the Preliminary Research Report, in an email dated October 15, 2004 and cc’d to many of the CEO’s of the major Canadian producers.

On a related point. Oracle recently was awarded $1.3 billion in litigation with SAP for their breach of Oracle’s IP. Two very clear points are noted as a result of this. As I noted in the previous paragraph, no software vendor will violate another vendors legitimate claim. And secondly, this is now being extended so that customers don't want to be party to illegitimate use or violation of others IP.

Customers of People, Ideas & Objects can rest assured that the clarity and pristine nature of our IP is impeccable. The value of the idea of using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct is immense, and the development of that idea is evident and available for anyone to review through this blog and the referenced knols. There are over 800,000 words, 6 good sized text books, that support the work that has been done and that is reflected in the Draft Specification. This effort has been undertaken to ensure People, Ideas & Objects customers of our ability to compete in this marketplace.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Oracle Changes the Game

Last week we saw a game changing decision in the Oracle vs. SAP court case in California. A court decision in which Copyright and Intellectual Property are upheld as the key to the software business.

People, Ideas & Objects has been based on the Copyright and Intellectual Property of the Preliminary Research report of using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. This original idea has been developed further in this blog and applied in the development of the Draft Specification. Intellectual property that is original, pristine and designed to solve the issues that exist in the oil and gas industry.

Customers of software vendors need to have their software applications with this level of Intellectual Property and Copyright pedigree. I am pleased to be able to provide our potential oil and gas customers with this high level of assurance of Intellectual Property.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Oracle vs. Google

Oracle has taken steps to litigate Google’s use of Java on the Android operating system; claiming Google’s use of Java requires payment for the technology. Oracle’s lawsuit seeks to establish that Google’s use violates its patent and copyright. One thing that can be stated about Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems, is that the adults are now running the show.

Working with Sun Microsystems was frustrating on many different levels. One of the frustrations is there never seemed to be any follow through from the business point of view. They may have built the most advanced technologies, but left the major issues of the business and marketing to chance. Letting the altruistic “community” or “open source” world develop the business.

This statement may appear in contrast to the dedication and commitment of People, Ideas & Objects to its communities. To that I would make the following points. When it comes to open systems, “free” does not mean for nothing. Free or open source systems leave the overall leadership or guidance of the product in the hands of the community. That the community is free to discover the correct direction for the product. People, Ideas & Objects has put the product direction in the hands of the user, producer and Community of Independent Service Providers. The business of how our communities will survive in the long term follows a similar strategy to what Oracle is employing.

In Sun’s “altruistic” management of their communities they left the business aspects of their technologies to find their own way. The community needs to be supported financially. Without the financial resources, there is no sustainable viable long-term community that will survive. Leaving the communities financial resources to the whims of whether Google would pay or not is foolhardy. Now that Oracle is monetizing these Intellectual Property assets, the Java community will prosper.

With that stated, it is important to note that People, Ideas & Objects have budgeted for all of Oracle licenses, including Java. These are being paid on behalf of our users, producers and Community of Independent Service Providers. At no time will users or producers be expected to pay Oracle directly, or be subject to any Oracle litigation with respect to their use of the underlying Java or Oracle technologies used in People, Ideas & Objects software applications.

Technorati Tags:

Sunday, February 24, 2008

"Democratizing Innovation"

Professor Eric Von Hippel of MIT

There are two free books that help provide an understanding of how People, Ideas & Objects software development project will proceed. And most importantly the role of the Users and Developers involved. The first book is the above titled and can be downloaded from here. The second book "The Future of Ideas" is also down-loadable, and written by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University.

Professor von Hippel's book documents the means to attain the innovation that we seek. In Chapter 1 he provides a summary of the entire book. This summary provides coverage of the points that I want to make, so lets begin.

Chapter 1

Professor von Hippel starts off with framing the context in which he sees innovation occurring. Defining both User centred innovation vs manufacturer centric innovation. For the purposes of this blog entry, von Hippel's focus on the use of "manufacturers" is consistent with our understanding of oil and gas user based innovation.
Users that innovate can develop exactly what they want, rather than relying on manufacturers to act as their (often very imperfect) agents. Moreover, individual users do not have to develop everything they need on their own: they can benefit from innovations developed and freely shared by others. p. 1
This software development project is global in scope, use of the Joint Operating Committee is the cultural norm throughout the industry. The People, Ideas & Objects project is conceived in the open source model and will provide the Users, developers, and producers with innovations developed elsewhere. I believe this is possible and Professor von Hippel indicates how this is happening.
At the same time, the ongoing shift of product-development activities from manufacturers to users is painful and difficult for many manufacturers. Open, distributed innovation is "attacking" a major structure of the social division of labor. Many firms and industries must make fundamental changes to long-held business models in order to adapt. p. 2
This very point was addressed in my original thesis. Anthony Giddens is currently more famous as an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, in 1984 he published "The Constitution of Society" which introduces his structuration theory. Structuration suggests that people, organizations and society progress at the same rate, any imbalance in one would lead to failure in the others. I had suggested that the energy industries use of the hierarchical organizational model had exceeded its useful life, and indeed was inhibiting both people and society. I think that we are beginning to see and understand the failures that the energy bureaucracies are having on society. Moving to the industry standard Joint Operating Committee is the fundamental change that is necessary to avoid these failures. How these changes are implemented is through a clean break from the old business model.
Innovation user and innovation manufacturer are the two general "functional" relationships between innovator and innovation. p. 3
We need these two types of innovations. One is the systems, developed by its users, that support the innovative energy industry, and in turn support the innovations that need to take place in the earth sciences and engineering disciplines. Professor Giovanni Dosi shows that science is influenced by innovations which in turn leads to new sciences and new innovations. Consumers and producers of innovations may be more a reflection about a point in time rather then an individuals role in the long term. Software systems need to adapt to changes like these. This is what I am setting out to provide to this user community.
In figure 1.1, the increased concentration of innovations towards the right indicates that the likelihood of innovating is higher for users having higher lead user index values. The rise in average innovation attractiveness as one moves from left to right indicates that innovations developed by lead users tend to be more commercially attractive. (Innovation attractiveness is the sum of the novelty of the innovation and the expected future generality of market demand.) p. 4
Who these innovation leaders are is unknown at this time. But as this project continues to achieve mind-share in the energy sector, I think we will begin to soon find out.
Mass manufacturers tend to follow a strategy of developing products that are designed to meet the needs of a large market segment well enough to induce purchase from and capture significant profits from a large number of customer. When users' needs are heterogeneous, this strategy of "a few sizes fit all" will leave many users somewhat dissatisfied with the commercial products on offer and probably will leave some users seriously dissatisfied. p. 5
A drive that I am attempting to lead away from the generic industry software solutions of IBM, SAP and Oracle. The energy industry is too unique to share any similarities to other industries.
The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others. p. 9
Encapsulating the value of today's collaborative Information Technologies.
When we say that an innovator freely reveals information about a product or service it has developed, we mean that all intellectual property rights to that information are voluntarily given up by the innovator, and all interested parties are given access to it - the information becomes a public good. p. 9
This is how the second book "The Future of Ideas" written by Professor Lessig's comes into play. If everyone is only concerned about the access rights to their own ideas this entire community will be eventually reduced to a place where only Lawyers will be happy. The licensing model for this project simply enables the free and unencumbered access to the ideas and intellectual property contained within this project. This is derived through myself granting Users and Developers free access to all of the intellectual property. In turn each User and Developer assigns the rights in their ideas and innovations back to the copyright holder enabling immediate re-distribution of the idea. This is necessary to maintain the free access for all concerned, and, that I have a strong position to assess the energy producers for the appropriate financial resources necessary to pay the Developers and Users to do this work.
Innovation by users tends to be widely distributed rather than concentrated among just a very few very innovative users. As a result, it is important for user-innovators to find ways to combine and leverage their efforts. Users achieve this by engaging in many forms of cooperation. Direct, informal user to user cooperation (assisting others to innovate, answering questions, and so on) is common. Organized cooperation is also common, with users joining together in networks and communities that provide useful structure and tools for their interactions and for the distribution of innovations. Innovation communities can increase the speed and effectiveness with which users and also manufacturers can develop and test and diffuse their innovation. They also can greatly increase the ease with which innovators can build larger systems from inter-linkable modules created by community participants. pp. 10 - 11
I think that this is by far the best method in which this community should be built and achieve what is possible in this time and place. I would challenge anyone to suggest a more effective means of this communities innovations, and avoid the following.
Intellectual property law was intended to increase the amount of innovation investment. Instead, it now appears that there are economies of scope in both patenting and copyright that allow firms to use these forms of intellectual property law in ways that are directly opposed to the intent of policy makers and to the public welfare. p. 12
This discussion is the method that Open Source projects have used in the technology environment. Not all open source projects fall within this category, only what I perceive as the commercially successful ones.
User's ability to innovate is improving radically and rapidly as a result of the steadily improving quality of computer software and hardware, improved access to easy to use tools and components for innovation, and access to a steadily richer innovation commons. Today, user firms and even individual hobbyists have access to sophisticated programming tools for software and sophisticated CAD design tools for hardware and electronic. These information based tools can be run on a personal computer, and they are rapidly coming down in price. As a consequence, innovation by users will continue to grow even if the degree of heterogeneity of need and willingness to invest in obtaining a precisely right product remains constant. p.13
and
I conclude this introductory chapter by reemphasizing that user innovation, free revealing and user innovation communities will flourish under many but not all conditions. What we know about manufacturer - centered innovation is still valid; however, lead user centered innovation patterns are increasingly important, and they present major new opportunities and challenges for us all. p. 17
Thank you Professor von Hippel for noting these key points and the free access to these important concepts in your book. If we miss this opportunity it will not be as a result of a lack of access to the intellectual property.

Professor Lessig has a unique understanding of some of the legal implications of the Internet. I recommend reading his book as a companion to Professor von Hippel's book. Lessig's book provides an understanding of many of the issues and opportunities around intellectual property. I think that the most effective way in which these ideas can be populated and built upon are addressed in Professor Lessig's book, and implemented in People, Ideas & Objects.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,