(These are some thoughts I put together for a workshop I was unable to attend. Not fully thought-through yet.)
I’ve spent the last ten years trying to convince universities to engage in the concept of public good over locked-in value; the first five years working from within as a software developer, the second five years working as an external agent of change. My method has been to advocate that all software should be made available as source code, in a form and under a license that allows anyone to run it however they like, look at and modify it, redistribute and fix bugs in it. This is known as the “four freedoms”, and is the underlying tenet of Open Source and Free Software.
The reason for this is that human endeavour is most successful when it is built upon the successes of others – as Sir Isaac Newton wrote, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”. This argument is particularly poignant in university circles, where many amazing discoveries and insights would not have been possible if it were not for the ideas of peer review and publication of one’s research. In order to achieve evolution of ideas within a computing ambit, we must make the code we work with available to all for further study and innovation.
Directly opposing the ideas of innovation and evolution (both in computing and even wider remits), we have the increasingly common practice of exploiting intellectual capital through lock-in: patents and other IPR mechanisms designed to “cash in” on the intellectual capital of institutions. Whilst in the harsh economic climate it is completely understandable for universities and other organisations to look for direct revenue wherever possible, I argue that this disregards the indirect revenue effect (profiting from publishing and being seen to be the experts), and has a detrimental effect on both our economy and our learning community in the long term.
Bringing this back to the more central question of how to work in a social enterprise / co-operative model: the Open Source / Free Software community are experts in the advancement of society through co-operation. The linux operating system is the best example: hundreds of developers all over the world making contributions to a project, for the benefit of all. Universities can learn a lot from this model: by giving away IPR they can stimulate other communities to work with them, and better exploit their resources through being expert practitioners rather than through lock-in and lawyers.
Aside: there’s also a question of social deprivation, particularly in the eastern region. When money is short, cost can be a major disincentive to innovation. Open Source software is often available for low or no cost, making it an ideal choice. I’m not keen on stressing this point too much however, since there’s no real reason for Open Source to be free – it just tends to happen that way.
What is making it hard for academics to engage the social sector—cost, timelines, differences in research concerns? In my experience, the biggest block is institutional policy: the management that insist every approach must take into account IPR and paths to exploitation. Obviously universities have every right to take advantage of the wealth of intellectual capital they retain, but a more open policy that looks at methods other than solely “incorporate; patent; sell” is in order.
How can universities support new ventures in the social sector? By engaging with them! Certainly as an SME I experienced a great deal of ignorance on the part of universities regarding our existence; universities should look beyond traditional models such as “town and gown” and should actively work with business development agencies to find out who and what is going on in their regions. They might find that SMEs and the social sector have exploitable intellectual capital as well, and that it is beneficial to all if they work together.
Should universities be encouraging their spin-outs to use social enterprise/cooperative models? Most certainly. If we try and compete on the basis of lock-in and IPR we will all fail: there’s always someone with bigger and better lawyers or stores of intellectual capital. Approaching the problem as knowledge practitioners, where value is exemplified by ability rather than through contracts, is a much better model for engaging the community. (Think meritocracies.)
Related posts: