Report September 2009: Difference between revisions

From Commons Based Research
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 17: Line 17:
****[[Diagnostic Kits/The Argument Framework|The Argument Framework]]
****[[Diagnostic Kits/The Argument Framework|The Argument Framework]]
****[[Diagnostic Kits/Bibliographic Needs|Bibliographic Needs]]
****[[Diagnostic Kits/Bibliographic Needs|Bibliographic Needs]]
**More importantly the heading for the [[Diagnostic_Kits#Bibliography|Bibliography]] is now a link to a [[Diagnostic_Kits/Bibliography|page]] that organizes the Bibliography according to the papers argument framework.


=== Work Completed ===
=== Work Completed ===

Revision as of 15:06, 24 September 2009

Status Report, ICP Project

Field Research Methodology

Status

Next Steps

Diagnostic Kits

General Status

  • He have created a glossary of research vocabulary that has a allowed us to better define the field.
  • We have developed a bibliography with literary reviews of the key articles.
    • We have found that genetic diagnostic kits are probably best suited for this study
  • We are developing a better understanding of the intellectual property landscape and have established that a wide variety of protections are used including: patent, trade secrets, NDAs, Non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality agreements. Economics of IP & IP
  • No open business models have emerged in the literature or through interviews.
  • We recently addresses the organizational needs of the paper in a few ways

Work Completed

Work Partially Completed

Work Remaining

Research Methodology in use

  • Case studies
  • Literature review
  • Industry analysis
  • Business reports and press releases
  • University reports and press releases

Problems and Considerations

  • How can we learn more about the use of trade secret protection of data?
  • What information should we aim to obtain through interviews?
  • Should we focus on genetic diagnostic test exclusively?

Next Steps

  • Continue to add information to the research methodology. Specifically, increase information about University contributions.
  • Continue to interview experts in the field