Commons Based Research - User contributions [en]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-19T01:26:21Z

WikiSysop: /* Publications */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==Paper==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper Alternative Energy Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
See: [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-19T01:26:03Z

WikiSysop: /* Publications */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[Paper]==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper Alternative Energy Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
See: [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Main Page/ICP Reports and Working Papers

2010-10-19T01:25:27Z

WikiSysop: /* Alternative Energy */

{{TOCright}}

= Working Papers, Essays and Presentations=
==[[Alternative Energy]]==
* Alternative Energy [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper Alternative Energy]
* [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey ]]
* Essay: [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 

==[[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]]==
===[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Biotechnology_-_Genomic_and_Proteomics#Special_Cases_in_BGP Genomics]===
*'''Genomic Knowledge Governance'''
** '''Paper:''' [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/Genomics_Knowledge_Governance.pdf An Interoperability Principle for Knowldge Creation and Governance]
**By: Carolina Rossini and John Wilbanks
** Presented at ''MINDS conference on Strategic Responses to Globalization'', held from 3 November 2009 to 6 November 2009, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The second version was presented at the ''II International Intellectual Property Conference of Portuguese Speaking Countries'', from 25 to 27, February, 2010, in Lisbon, Portugal.
* '''[http://www.sagebase.org/ Sage Bionetworks]'''
** [[Sage - A Merck Project]]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Image:Sage_International_Data_Commons.pdf Sage International Data Commons Working-Group] on international Genomics Knowledge Governance.
*** Carolina Rossini is coordinating the internationalization efforts of [http://www.sagebase.org/ Sage Bionetworks] in cooperation with [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and Sage

===[[Diagnostic Kits]]===
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Page_for_Joint_Creation_of_Blog_Post DK Essay]
*[[Diagnostic Kits/Case Law Review|Case Law Review]]
*[[Diagnostic Kits/Literature Review|Literature Review]]
*[[Diagnostic Kits/Country Reports Review|Country Reports Review]]
*[[Diagnostic Kits/USA Regulation Review|USA Regulation Review]]

==[[Educational Materials]]==
* Educational Materials [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials/Paper Paper]
* [http://publius.cc/brief_overview_us_public_policy_oer_californias_community_colleges_obama_ad A Brief Overview of U.S. Public Policy on OER from California's Community Colleges to the Obama Administration]

==[[Telecommunications]]==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Image:Telecommunications.pdf Telecommunications Paper]

= Internal Reports=
*[[Report April 2009]] 
*[[Report May 2009]] 
*[[Report June 2009]] 
*[[Report September 2009]] 
* [[Report October 2009]] 

=External Reports=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Image:FFPregressReport.pdf ICP Progress Report] for Ford Foundation as of June 2009.
** Related Presentation for Ford Foundation

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-17T20:52:28Z

WikiSysop: /* Essay on EFRC Survey */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper/ Alternative Energy Background Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
See: [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

ICP Sectors

2010-10-16T21:28:44Z

WikiSysop: /* Diagnostic Kits */

{{TOCright}}

=Introduction=

This section presents the high-level synthesis of the work. It should be used as a reading guiad, assisting the ICP Wiki user to navigate its contents.

==[[Alternative Energy]]==

In Alternative Energy, we found enormous recent activity and investment in the development of new tools and products worldwide, and an exponential grown in the number of patents mirrors this activity. We began our research with the intention of limiting our scope to the US only, but given the global scope of the alternative energy market, and the fact that almost all the market leading companies have grown in foreign countries where the markets for this technology have been biggest and which can be considered historical centers of technology innovation, we chose to include Germany, Denmark, and Spain. Additionally, among the countries considered emerging economies, we decided to look at China for the geopolitical implications relating to its relationship with the United States, but also for its surprising and fast growing number of patents.The potential reasons for this may be many, but some are attributable to consistent combination of push and pull policy choices in some of those countries.

We chose wind, solar and tidal/wave technologies with the expectation that we would find variations among their approaches to openness and closedness, since the technologies represent different levels of maturity and patenting activity. The maturity can be measured both by the stage of development of the technology and the stage of development of the market. For instance, wind is considered a mature technology because it is fairly well understood, and the cost of generating electricity with wind turbines is closer to the cost of conventional sources of fossil fuel generated electricity - though it is still more expensive. Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is less mature and can be quite expensive, therefore the research and innovation around solar PV technologies is sure to play a critical role in bringing its costs down and generating more efficient technology. Tidal/wave technology is relatively immature compared to wind and solar, and is mostly in the demonstration phase at this time.

What we found was relatively traditional industrial innovation practice - research and development at big companies, venture-backed startups, investment by governments in national laboratories with traditional knowledge and technology transfer processes in place. The end products and their industrial sellers appear to be much less affected by emergent commons-based processes than software, culture, and educational materials. They are products like massive wind turbines or solar arrays, physically manufactured at high expense, covered by entire families of patents, and subject to a very traditional innovation paradigm. The wind market is concentrated amend some top industries that have been acquiring small innovative companies for many decades. We did find some uptake and endorsement of open source software, especially around the advance of Smart Grid technologies, though we did not research deeper on that, as well as intriguing new projects around access to energy data, which point to intriguing hypotheses about how CBP could emerge in the field and begin to disrupt the industry in the future.

There is clearly a desire by many of the key stakeholders in energy to “change the game” and increase the overall rate of innovation in renewable energy. This desire has been expressed in the US very clearly in President Obama’s innovation strategies, including by Energy Secretarty Chu and Commerce Secretary Locke. The OpenEI (to share smart grid data in a manner consistent with the US data.gov system), U.S. OpenLabs, and the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Energy (DSIRE) all point towards the intrusion of new market forces into what has been a fairly traditional industrial sector, one that has had more in common with the creation of airplanes or automobiles than with software engineering or educational materials construction. The Obama administration is also working with new market forces via the Kauffman Foundation for entrepreneurship, hosting (and even webcasting) events at the White House and in general positioning itself as a force for more openness in energy data and potentially in technologies. In a recent meeting (05/08/2010), knowledge sharing and new way to bring research from universities into development and the market were key themes, in addition to the necessity of generating jobs within the US borders.

It is estimated that, until recently, 2/3s of investment into alternative energy R&D within the USA came from the private sector, however, there is a broad acceptance that the government should be the responsible for investing in new, risky, and possible disruptive, basic research for innovation within AE. This is due also to the disappearance of large corporate laboratories - such as Xerox Lab, BellLab, and others - which has increased the importance of national labs and universities as key players for early stage innovative research. Thus, after a couple of decades with low public investment in renewables R&D - as of 2007, federal support for energy R&D had fallen by more than half since a high point in 1978, and private-sector energy R&D has similarly fallen - , a recent major investment under the recovery plan (ARRA 2009) was devised. By analyzing the innovation pipeline of alternative energy a series of programs were devised by the DOE. At the basic research level, 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) within Universities and National Labs were created. The EFRC represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research. At the translational level, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) was created and modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ARPA-E will fund energy technology projects that translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and will be distributed through awarding grants, cooperative agreements or Technology Investment Agreements The program should also accelerate technological advances in high-risk areas that industry is not likely to pursue independently. And, finally, the Energy Innovation Regional Clusters (E-RIC) aimed spur regional economic growth while developing innovative energy efficient building technologies, designs, and systems.

This desire by the US is actually preceded by private and public interventions elsewhere. Denmark saw industrial cooperation on “vertical stacks” of wind technologies in the 1990s, in which competition was voluntarily restricted by companies in order to achieve greater interoperability, and the wind industry in the US also collaborated via informal “club” arrangements hosted at Stanford to achieve more reliable gearboxes without demanding new patent applications and licensing. So the US government entry is not without precedent, but the power of the US government to change the market is indeed a major new player in the industrial cooperation arrangements we expect to see in the next decade.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Alternative Energy/Paper|Paper]] 
Read [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ AE Essay] 
Read [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]] 
Read Annex 3 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy AE Notes]

==[[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]]==

Inside Biotechnology - Genomics and Proteomics, we found a mixture of commons-based production and more traditional, closed practices depending on the point in the value chain where we looked.

The fields of genomics and proteomics represent a rich research base for an analysis of cooperative behavior and commons-based knowledge generation - there are long-established actors, projects, and cooperative systems, covering most of the classes of products produced by biotech, and across a wide range of tools and knowledge. There is massive investment by public and private players across the research cycle, ranging from fundamental “big science” projects where data is treated as infrastructure to intermediate “translational research” where the basic discoveries are converted to potentially useful health interventions, to marketable products like genetic therapies and diagnostic kits.

“Big science” projects show the most evidence of commons-based effects on industry. The emergence of a commons in “big science genomics” is easiest to see in basic genome sequencing. Via the Human Genome Project (the genome common to all humans), the HapMap (a mapping of the genomic variation that makes us unique individuals), and follow-on projects, big government investments and accompanying public domain rules dramatically affected the industry of genomics, leading to the eventual exit from the market of corporate players like Celera from the business of selling genome databases. The commons in gene sequences also sparked the emergence of commons-based production in functional genome annotation, where the Distributed Annotation System allows for individual observations about the functions of specific gene sequences on disparate computers “snap together” to form a cohesive, parallel-generated view of genomic function.

Most big science happens through government investment in university and its outputs in the data and text products are now open by default (due to the Bermuda Rules and the NIH Public Access Policy), although tools and inventions frequently are subjected to competitive withholding and patenting. We did not observe significant evidence of commons-based industrial disruption in biological materials, research tools, although the Personal Genome Project and the efforts of private foundations investing in disease-specific research as well as a new set of technology transfer “principles” for licensing may create the conditions for such disruption in coming years. The iBridge Network by the Kauffman Foundation is also trying to disrupt the technology transfer market via an e-commerce model, though it is not explicitly a commons-based approach and instead simply focuses on lower transaction costs and increased transparency.

“Translational research” has traditionally been the province of biotechnology startups funded by venture capital, placing a high value on patents and trade secrets and thus has been resistant to commons effects as an industry. There are attempts to create “open source drug discovery” as seen in India, but most of those successes are actually more similar to big science - genotyping organisms versus identifying potential drug targets or potential drug interventions.

However, research on the translational research industry itself indicates not only that the industry is failing under its existing business models but provide tantalizing clues that a commons may be a viable approach: the only factors that correlate to an increase in the rates of drug discovery are those related to the total number of searchers. This research comes at the same time that new, non-profit entities like Sage Bionetworks are moving into the domains traditionally dominated by companies in the industry, explicitly adopting commons-based approaches. Sage is not performing research in order to generate IP, instead performing competitive translational research like target prioritization, drug response stratification, and even clinical studies under a business model in which the “profit” is the right to deposit data and outcomes into a digital commons, and marks a truly disruptive “port” of the commons model into the genomics industrial paradigm.

The end products market has been the most resistant to commons-based effects. Drugs, diagnostic kits, vaccines, and other products that are actually marketed to people exist under a strong regulatory regime that provides very high costs to entrants. Patents are aggressively used to enforce monopolies on products worldwide, creating artificial scarcity and dramatically affecting quality of life. In some cases there is conflict from the early stages of big science, or from the advance of technologies related to big science, with the products and patents - for example, it is easy now to get a genomic profile from a company like 23andme, which is cheap because of the Moore’s Law-like increases in genomic sequences and decreases in costs driven by big science. But if a woman were to ask for the profile to tell her if she had the genetic mutation for cancer, that would conflict with the Myriad Genetics patent on diagnosing the mutation, which is in the end products section. This kind of conflict can be expected to increase as consumer-driven sequencing explodes in coming years. There is also some interesting anecdotal evidence of interest by pharmaceutical companies in opening up their drug libraries to commons-influenced development for “rare” or “orphan” disease research, under arrangements in which the rights to commercially attractive uses of the drugs are retained by the companies in return for granting rights to less attractive uses under predefined terms of use.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read ''Genomics Knowledge Governance'' at [[Image: Genomics_Knowledge_Governance.pdf]] 
Read [[Sage - A Merck Project]] 
Read Annex 2 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Biotechnology_-_Genomic_and_Proteomics BGP Notes]

===[[Diagnostic Kits]]===

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Case Law Review|Case Law Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Country Reports Review|Country Reports Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/USA Regulation Review|USA Regulation Review]] 
Check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits/Glossary DK Research Vocabulary] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits DK Notes]

==[[Educational Materials]]==

* '''Evidence of commons-based industrial cooperation: educational materials'''

We found evidence of commons-based cooperation and production in the educational materials industry. The field of educational materials (EM) refers to a subset of the book, games, Internet, and software publishing industries that is focused on providing resources to a variety of educational market segments. EMs are available as both digital and non-digital solutions.

At the K-12 educational level, digital solutions include a range of technologies used to enhance the delivery and the administration of K-12 education, including data management systems, web-based course and assessment materials, and online tutoring and professional development—however, we focused on those digital solutions products that have specific educational purposes and where knowledge is embedded in a form that can be enclosed by some form of intellectual property. Regarding non-digital solutions, we included textbooks, course packs and other supplementary materials, and various educative toys and games.

Many of these products are experiencing market disruption as a result of rising commons-based production (CBP), which is in turn pushing the industry around EMs towards adopting commons-based industrial cooperation (CBIC) practices. There is a broad movement, known as Open Educational Resources (OER), in favor of treating educational and learning objects as open content products, which should be online, free of charge, available for remix under liberal copyright licenses, and in general subject to interpretation, iterative development, and redistribution. The OER movement is affecting educational policy at federal and local levels, and the power of the government as purchasing agent is playing a powerful role in creating market forces in the industry that favor cooperative approaches over competitive approaches.

We studied several instances of CBIC in educational materials, which are all presented on the wiki. The instances included Connexions, a software infrastructure for EMs that is flexible and modular. It is a novel teaching tool built and deployed for the Web, that supports not just text but collaboration in education and learning. Connexions features several aspects found about the commons-based EMs: the information is organized into smaller units than textbooks or chapters, web technology standards like XML are central to success, there are software and web tools to create, maintain, share and use content, there is a focus on community development and maintenance, and liberal Creative Commons copyright licenses ensure that the public’s legal rights are protected. Connexions has resulted also in radically lower textbook prices in some cases, showing how digital objects produced by the commons can affect the non-digital industrial economy of EMs.

Connexions in 2007 hosted more than 4000 learning modules, more than 220 courses or books, about 550,000 users, 2000 authors, and 200,000 hits per day from almost 200 countries. Since then the OER movement has only gained popularity and prominence, so we can expect these numbers to be higher today. It is a non profit project funded by philanthropic donations and grants.

Interestingly, we observed the emergence of for-profit OER producers like Qedoc, who focus their efforts on the creation of software tools rather than proprietary content, using a default rule of CC license usage in return for free-of-charge access to the software. We also profiled projects WikiEducator and Wikiversity, both of which apply a more traditional wiki model to planning education projects and creating learning resources. Each of these projects exists inside a universe of similar projects, demonstrating that the overall EM space is being dramatically changed by the impact of the Internet and accompanying commons-based effects. However, the traditional industry players are fighting against the advance of CBIC in many places, with strategies around customization that lock in clients where the content is commodity, but services are proprietary.

The EM industry is susceptible to commons effects for many reasons. One was that the government funders of EMs could begin prioritizing open resources as part of a focus on up-to-date materials and cost reductions, as we saw in debates from Texas and California. The government intervention on textbooks, for example, affects what was previously perceived to be the greatest barrier to OER (textbook adoption processes) and may have turned it into an advantage for OER. Another was that the industry already operated via copyright licensing, and therefore could leverage much of the infrastructure we associate with individual commons based cooperation, like liberal copyright licenses, wikis, mailing lists, and more, to allow individual cooperation with industrial players and open up space for novel projects like Connexions to challenge traditional industrial players by competing for new learners.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials/Paper EM Paper] 
Read [http://publius.cc/brief_overview_us_public_policy_oer_californias_community_colleges_obama_ad EM Essay] 
Read Annex 4 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials EM Notes]

==[[Telecommunications]]==
Read Annex 5 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Telecommunications Telecom Notes]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]

ICP Sectors

2010-10-16T21:21:58Z

WikiSysop: /* Diagnostic Kits */

{{TOCright}}

=Introduction=

This section presents the high-level synthesis of the work. It should be used as a reading guiad, assisting the ICP Wiki user to navigate its contents.

==[[Alternative Energy]]==

In Alternative Energy, we found enormous recent activity and investment in the development of new tools and products worldwide, and an exponential grown in the number of patents mirrors this activity. We began our research with the intention of limiting our scope to the US only, but given the global scope of the alternative energy market, and the fact that almost all the market leading companies have grown in foreign countries where the markets for this technology have been biggest and which can be considered historical centers of technology innovation, we chose to include Germany, Denmark, and Spain. Additionally, among the countries considered emerging economies, we decided to look at China for the geopolitical implications relating to its relationship with the United States, but also for its surprising and fast growing number of patents.The potential reasons for this may be many, but some are attributable to consistent combination of push and pull policy choices in some of those countries.

We chose wind, solar and tidal/wave technologies with the expectation that we would find variations among their approaches to openness and closedness, since the technologies represent different levels of maturity and patenting activity. The maturity can be measured both by the stage of development of the technology and the stage of development of the market. For instance, wind is considered a mature technology because it is fairly well understood, and the cost of generating electricity with wind turbines is closer to the cost of conventional sources of fossil fuel generated electricity - though it is still more expensive. Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is less mature and can be quite expensive, therefore the research and innovation around solar PV technologies is sure to play a critical role in bringing its costs down and generating more efficient technology. Tidal/wave technology is relatively immature compared to wind and solar, and is mostly in the demonstration phase at this time.

What we found was relatively traditional industrial innovation practice - research and development at big companies, venture-backed startups, investment by governments in national laboratories with traditional knowledge and technology transfer processes in place. The end products and their industrial sellers appear to be much less affected by emergent commons-based processes than software, culture, and educational materials. They are products like massive wind turbines or solar arrays, physically manufactured at high expense, covered by entire families of patents, and subject to a very traditional innovation paradigm. The wind market is concentrated amend some top industries that have been acquiring small innovative companies for many decades. We did find some uptake and endorsement of open source software, especially around the advance of Smart Grid technologies, though we did not research deeper on that, as well as intriguing new projects around access to energy data, which point to intriguing hypotheses about how CBP could emerge in the field and begin to disrupt the industry in the future.

There is clearly a desire by many of the key stakeholders in energy to “change the game” and increase the overall rate of innovation in renewable energy. This desire has been expressed in the US very clearly in President Obama’s innovation strategies, including by Energy Secretarty Chu and Commerce Secretary Locke. The OpenEI (to share smart grid data in a manner consistent with the US data.gov system), U.S. OpenLabs, and the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Energy (DSIRE) all point towards the intrusion of new market forces into what has been a fairly traditional industrial sector, one that has had more in common with the creation of airplanes or automobiles than with software engineering or educational materials construction. The Obama administration is also working with new market forces via the Kauffman Foundation for entrepreneurship, hosting (and even webcasting) events at the White House and in general positioning itself as a force for more openness in energy data and potentially in technologies. In a recent meeting (05/08/2010), knowledge sharing and new way to bring research from universities into development and the market were key themes, in addition to the necessity of generating jobs within the US borders.

It is estimated that, until recently, 2/3s of investment into alternative energy R&D within the USA came from the private sector, however, there is a broad acceptance that the government should be the responsible for investing in new, risky, and possible disruptive, basic research for innovation within AE. This is due also to the disappearance of large corporate laboratories - such as Xerox Lab, BellLab, and others - which has increased the importance of national labs and universities as key players for early stage innovative research. Thus, after a couple of decades with low public investment in renewables R&D - as of 2007, federal support for energy R&D had fallen by more than half since a high point in 1978, and private-sector energy R&D has similarly fallen - , a recent major investment under the recovery plan (ARRA 2009) was devised. By analyzing the innovation pipeline of alternative energy a series of programs were devised by the DOE. At the basic research level, 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) within Universities and National Labs were created. The EFRC represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research. At the translational level, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) was created and modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ARPA-E will fund energy technology projects that translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and will be distributed through awarding grants, cooperative agreements or Technology Investment Agreements The program should also accelerate technological advances in high-risk areas that industry is not likely to pursue independently. And, finally, the Energy Innovation Regional Clusters (E-RIC) aimed spur regional economic growth while developing innovative energy efficient building technologies, designs, and systems.

This desire by the US is actually preceded by private and public interventions elsewhere. Denmark saw industrial cooperation on “vertical stacks” of wind technologies in the 1990s, in which competition was voluntarily restricted by companies in order to achieve greater interoperability, and the wind industry in the US also collaborated via informal “club” arrangements hosted at Stanford to achieve more reliable gearboxes without demanding new patent applications and licensing. So the US government entry is not without precedent, but the power of the US government to change the market is indeed a major new player in the industrial cooperation arrangements we expect to see in the next decade.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Alternative Energy/Paper|Paper]] 
Read [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ AE Essay] 
Read [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]] 
Read Annex 3 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy AE Notes]

==[[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]]==

Inside Biotechnology - Genomics and Proteomics, we found a mixture of commons-based production and more traditional, closed practices depending on the point in the value chain where we looked.

The fields of genomics and proteomics represent a rich research base for an analysis of cooperative behavior and commons-based knowledge generation - there are long-established actors, projects, and cooperative systems, covering most of the classes of products produced by biotech, and across a wide range of tools and knowledge. There is massive investment by public and private players across the research cycle, ranging from fundamental “big science” projects where data is treated as infrastructure to intermediate “translational research” where the basic discoveries are converted to potentially useful health interventions, to marketable products like genetic therapies and diagnostic kits.

“Big science” projects show the most evidence of commons-based effects on industry. The emergence of a commons in “big science genomics” is easiest to see in basic genome sequencing. Via the Human Genome Project (the genome common to all humans), the HapMap (a mapping of the genomic variation that makes us unique individuals), and follow-on projects, big government investments and accompanying public domain rules dramatically affected the industry of genomics, leading to the eventual exit from the market of corporate players like Celera from the business of selling genome databases. The commons in gene sequences also sparked the emergence of commons-based production in functional genome annotation, where the Distributed Annotation System allows for individual observations about the functions of specific gene sequences on disparate computers “snap together” to form a cohesive, parallel-generated view of genomic function.

Most big science happens through government investment in university and its outputs in the data and text products are now open by default (due to the Bermuda Rules and the NIH Public Access Policy), although tools and inventions frequently are subjected to competitive withholding and patenting. We did not observe significant evidence of commons-based industrial disruption in biological materials, research tools, although the Personal Genome Project and the efforts of private foundations investing in disease-specific research as well as a new set of technology transfer “principles” for licensing may create the conditions for such disruption in coming years. The iBridge Network by the Kauffman Foundation is also trying to disrupt the technology transfer market via an e-commerce model, though it is not explicitly a commons-based approach and instead simply focuses on lower transaction costs and increased transparency.

“Translational research” has traditionally been the province of biotechnology startups funded by venture capital, placing a high value on patents and trade secrets and thus has been resistant to commons effects as an industry. There are attempts to create “open source drug discovery” as seen in India, but most of those successes are actually more similar to big science - genotyping organisms versus identifying potential drug targets or potential drug interventions.

However, research on the translational research industry itself indicates not only that the industry is failing under its existing business models but provide tantalizing clues that a commons may be a viable approach: the only factors that correlate to an increase in the rates of drug discovery are those related to the total number of searchers. This research comes at the same time that new, non-profit entities like Sage Bionetworks are moving into the domains traditionally dominated by companies in the industry, explicitly adopting commons-based approaches. Sage is not performing research in order to generate IP, instead performing competitive translational research like target prioritization, drug response stratification, and even clinical studies under a business model in which the “profit” is the right to deposit data and outcomes into a digital commons, and marks a truly disruptive “port” of the commons model into the genomics industrial paradigm.

The end products market has been the most resistant to commons-based effects. Drugs, diagnostic kits, vaccines, and other products that are actually marketed to people exist under a strong regulatory regime that provides very high costs to entrants. Patents are aggressively used to enforce monopolies on products worldwide, creating artificial scarcity and dramatically affecting quality of life. In some cases there is conflict from the early stages of big science, or from the advance of technologies related to big science, with the products and patents - for example, it is easy now to get a genomic profile from a company like 23andme, which is cheap because of the Moore’s Law-like increases in genomic sequences and decreases in costs driven by big science. But if a woman were to ask for the profile to tell her if she had the genetic mutation for cancer, that would conflict with the Myriad Genetics patent on diagnosing the mutation, which is in the end products section. This kind of conflict can be expected to increase as consumer-driven sequencing explodes in coming years. There is also some interesting anecdotal evidence of interest by pharmaceutical companies in opening up their drug libraries to commons-influenced development for “rare” or “orphan” disease research, under arrangements in which the rights to commercially attractive uses of the drugs are retained by the companies in return for granting rights to less attractive uses under predefined terms of use.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read ''Genomics Knowledge Governance'' at [[Image: Genomics_Knowledge_Governance.pdf]] 
Read [[Sage - A Merck Project]] 
Read Annex 2 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Biotechnology_-_Genomic_and_Proteomics BGP Notes]

===[[Diagnostic Kits]]===

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Case Law Review|Case Law Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Country Reports Review|Country Reports Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/USA Regulation Review|USA Regulation Review]] 
Check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits/Glossary/ DK Research Vocabulary] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits DK Notes]

==[[Educational Materials]]==

* '''Evidence of commons-based industrial cooperation: educational materials'''

We found evidence of commons-based cooperation and production in the educational materials industry. The field of educational materials (EM) refers to a subset of the book, games, Internet, and software publishing industries that is focused on providing resources to a variety of educational market segments. EMs are available as both digital and non-digital solutions.

At the K-12 educational level, digital solutions include a range of technologies used to enhance the delivery and the administration of K-12 education, including data management systems, web-based course and assessment materials, and online tutoring and professional development—however, we focused on those digital solutions products that have specific educational purposes and where knowledge is embedded in a form that can be enclosed by some form of intellectual property. Regarding non-digital solutions, we included textbooks, course packs and other supplementary materials, and various educative toys and games.

Many of these products are experiencing market disruption as a result of rising commons-based production (CBP), which is in turn pushing the industry around EMs towards adopting commons-based industrial cooperation (CBIC) practices. There is a broad movement, known as Open Educational Resources (OER), in favor of treating educational and learning objects as open content products, which should be online, free of charge, available for remix under liberal copyright licenses, and in general subject to interpretation, iterative development, and redistribution. The OER movement is affecting educational policy at federal and local levels, and the power of the government as purchasing agent is playing a powerful role in creating market forces in the industry that favor cooperative approaches over competitive approaches.

We studied several instances of CBIC in educational materials, which are all presented on the wiki. The instances included Connexions, a software infrastructure for EMs that is flexible and modular. It is a novel teaching tool built and deployed for the Web, that supports not just text but collaboration in education and learning. Connexions features several aspects found about the commons-based EMs: the information is organized into smaller units than textbooks or chapters, web technology standards like XML are central to success, there are software and web tools to create, maintain, share and use content, there is a focus on community development and maintenance, and liberal Creative Commons copyright licenses ensure that the public’s legal rights are protected. Connexions has resulted also in radically lower textbook prices in some cases, showing how digital objects produced by the commons can affect the non-digital industrial economy of EMs.

Connexions in 2007 hosted more than 4000 learning modules, more than 220 courses or books, about 550,000 users, 2000 authors, and 200,000 hits per day from almost 200 countries. Since then the OER movement has only gained popularity and prominence, so we can expect these numbers to be higher today. It is a non profit project funded by philanthropic donations and grants.

Interestingly, we observed the emergence of for-profit OER producers like Qedoc, who focus their efforts on the creation of software tools rather than proprietary content, using a default rule of CC license usage in return for free-of-charge access to the software. We also profiled projects WikiEducator and Wikiversity, both of which apply a more traditional wiki model to planning education projects and creating learning resources. Each of these projects exists inside a universe of similar projects, demonstrating that the overall EM space is being dramatically changed by the impact of the Internet and accompanying commons-based effects. However, the traditional industry players are fighting against the advance of CBIC in many places, with strategies around customization that lock in clients where the content is commodity, but services are proprietary.

The EM industry is susceptible to commons effects for many reasons. One was that the government funders of EMs could begin prioritizing open resources as part of a focus on up-to-date materials and cost reductions, as we saw in debates from Texas and California. The government intervention on textbooks, for example, affects what was previously perceived to be the greatest barrier to OER (textbook adoption processes) and may have turned it into an advantage for OER. Another was that the industry already operated via copyright licensing, and therefore could leverage much of the infrastructure we associate with individual commons based cooperation, like liberal copyright licenses, wikis, mailing lists, and more, to allow individual cooperation with industrial players and open up space for novel projects like Connexions to challenge traditional industrial players by competing for new learners.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials/Paper EM Paper] 
Read [http://publius.cc/brief_overview_us_public_policy_oer_californias_community_colleges_obama_ad EM Essay] 
Read Annex 4 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials EM Notes]

==[[Telecommunications]]==
Read Annex 5 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Telecommunications Telecom Notes]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]

ICP Sectors

2010-10-16T21:21:35Z

WikiSysop: /* Diagnostic Kits */

{{TOCright}}

=Introduction=

This section presents the high-level synthesis of the work. It should be used as a reading guiad, assisting the ICP Wiki user to navigate its contents.

==[[Alternative Energy]]==

In Alternative Energy, we found enormous recent activity and investment in the development of new tools and products worldwide, and an exponential grown in the number of patents mirrors this activity. We began our research with the intention of limiting our scope to the US only, but given the global scope of the alternative energy market, and the fact that almost all the market leading companies have grown in foreign countries where the markets for this technology have been biggest and which can be considered historical centers of technology innovation, we chose to include Germany, Denmark, and Spain. Additionally, among the countries considered emerging economies, we decided to look at China for the geopolitical implications relating to its relationship with the United States, but also for its surprising and fast growing number of patents.The potential reasons for this may be many, but some are attributable to consistent combination of push and pull policy choices in some of those countries.

We chose wind, solar and tidal/wave technologies with the expectation that we would find variations among their approaches to openness and closedness, since the technologies represent different levels of maturity and patenting activity. The maturity can be measured both by the stage of development of the technology and the stage of development of the market. For instance, wind is considered a mature technology because it is fairly well understood, and the cost of generating electricity with wind turbines is closer to the cost of conventional sources of fossil fuel generated electricity - though it is still more expensive. Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is less mature and can be quite expensive, therefore the research and innovation around solar PV technologies is sure to play a critical role in bringing its costs down and generating more efficient technology. Tidal/wave technology is relatively immature compared to wind and solar, and is mostly in the demonstration phase at this time.

What we found was relatively traditional industrial innovation practice - research and development at big companies, venture-backed startups, investment by governments in national laboratories with traditional knowledge and technology transfer processes in place. The end products and their industrial sellers appear to be much less affected by emergent commons-based processes than software, culture, and educational materials. They are products like massive wind turbines or solar arrays, physically manufactured at high expense, covered by entire families of patents, and subject to a very traditional innovation paradigm. The wind market is concentrated amend some top industries that have been acquiring small innovative companies for many decades. We did find some uptake and endorsement of open source software, especially around the advance of Smart Grid technologies, though we did not research deeper on that, as well as intriguing new projects around access to energy data, which point to intriguing hypotheses about how CBP could emerge in the field and begin to disrupt the industry in the future.

There is clearly a desire by many of the key stakeholders in energy to “change the game” and increase the overall rate of innovation in renewable energy. This desire has been expressed in the US very clearly in President Obama’s innovation strategies, including by Energy Secretarty Chu and Commerce Secretary Locke. The OpenEI (to share smart grid data in a manner consistent with the US data.gov system), U.S. OpenLabs, and the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Energy (DSIRE) all point towards the intrusion of new market forces into what has been a fairly traditional industrial sector, one that has had more in common with the creation of airplanes or automobiles than with software engineering or educational materials construction. The Obama administration is also working with new market forces via the Kauffman Foundation for entrepreneurship, hosting (and even webcasting) events at the White House and in general positioning itself as a force for more openness in energy data and potentially in technologies. In a recent meeting (05/08/2010), knowledge sharing and new way to bring research from universities into development and the market were key themes, in addition to the necessity of generating jobs within the US borders.

It is estimated that, until recently, 2/3s of investment into alternative energy R&D within the USA came from the private sector, however, there is a broad acceptance that the government should be the responsible for investing in new, risky, and possible disruptive, basic research for innovation within AE. This is due also to the disappearance of large corporate laboratories - such as Xerox Lab, BellLab, and others - which has increased the importance of national labs and universities as key players for early stage innovative research. Thus, after a couple of decades with low public investment in renewables R&D - as of 2007, federal support for energy R&D had fallen by more than half since a high point in 1978, and private-sector energy R&D has similarly fallen - , a recent major investment under the recovery plan (ARRA 2009) was devised. By analyzing the innovation pipeline of alternative energy a series of programs were devised by the DOE. At the basic research level, 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) within Universities and National Labs were created. The EFRC represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research. At the translational level, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) was created and modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ARPA-E will fund energy technology projects that translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and will be distributed through awarding grants, cooperative agreements or Technology Investment Agreements The program should also accelerate technological advances in high-risk areas that industry is not likely to pursue independently. And, finally, the Energy Innovation Regional Clusters (E-RIC) aimed spur regional economic growth while developing innovative energy efficient building technologies, designs, and systems.

This desire by the US is actually preceded by private and public interventions elsewhere. Denmark saw industrial cooperation on “vertical stacks” of wind technologies in the 1990s, in which competition was voluntarily restricted by companies in order to achieve greater interoperability, and the wind industry in the US also collaborated via informal “club” arrangements hosted at Stanford to achieve more reliable gearboxes without demanding new patent applications and licensing. So the US government entry is not without precedent, but the power of the US government to change the market is indeed a major new player in the industrial cooperation arrangements we expect to see in the next decade.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Alternative Energy/Paper|Paper]] 
Read [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ AE Essay] 
Read [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]] 
Read Annex 3 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy AE Notes]

==[[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]]==

Inside Biotechnology - Genomics and Proteomics, we found a mixture of commons-based production and more traditional, closed practices depending on the point in the value chain where we looked.

The fields of genomics and proteomics represent a rich research base for an analysis of cooperative behavior and commons-based knowledge generation - there are long-established actors, projects, and cooperative systems, covering most of the classes of products produced by biotech, and across a wide range of tools and knowledge. There is massive investment by public and private players across the research cycle, ranging from fundamental “big science” projects where data is treated as infrastructure to intermediate “translational research” where the basic discoveries are converted to potentially useful health interventions, to marketable products like genetic therapies and diagnostic kits.

“Big science” projects show the most evidence of commons-based effects on industry. The emergence of a commons in “big science genomics” is easiest to see in basic genome sequencing. Via the Human Genome Project (the genome common to all humans), the HapMap (a mapping of the genomic variation that makes us unique individuals), and follow-on projects, big government investments and accompanying public domain rules dramatically affected the industry of genomics, leading to the eventual exit from the market of corporate players like Celera from the business of selling genome databases. The commons in gene sequences also sparked the emergence of commons-based production in functional genome annotation, where the Distributed Annotation System allows for individual observations about the functions of specific gene sequences on disparate computers “snap together” to form a cohesive, parallel-generated view of genomic function.

Most big science happens through government investment in university and its outputs in the data and text products are now open by default (due to the Bermuda Rules and the NIH Public Access Policy), although tools and inventions frequently are subjected to competitive withholding and patenting. We did not observe significant evidence of commons-based industrial disruption in biological materials, research tools, although the Personal Genome Project and the efforts of private foundations investing in disease-specific research as well as a new set of technology transfer “principles” for licensing may create the conditions for such disruption in coming years. The iBridge Network by the Kauffman Foundation is also trying to disrupt the technology transfer market via an e-commerce model, though it is not explicitly a commons-based approach and instead simply focuses on lower transaction costs and increased transparency.

“Translational research” has traditionally been the province of biotechnology startups funded by venture capital, placing a high value on patents and trade secrets and thus has been resistant to commons effects as an industry. There are attempts to create “open source drug discovery” as seen in India, but most of those successes are actually more similar to big science - genotyping organisms versus identifying potential drug targets or potential drug interventions.

However, research on the translational research industry itself indicates not only that the industry is failing under its existing business models but provide tantalizing clues that a commons may be a viable approach: the only factors that correlate to an increase in the rates of drug discovery are those related to the total number of searchers. This research comes at the same time that new, non-profit entities like Sage Bionetworks are moving into the domains traditionally dominated by companies in the industry, explicitly adopting commons-based approaches. Sage is not performing research in order to generate IP, instead performing competitive translational research like target prioritization, drug response stratification, and even clinical studies under a business model in which the “profit” is the right to deposit data and outcomes into a digital commons, and marks a truly disruptive “port” of the commons model into the genomics industrial paradigm.

The end products market has been the most resistant to commons-based effects. Drugs, diagnostic kits, vaccines, and other products that are actually marketed to people exist under a strong regulatory regime that provides very high costs to entrants. Patents are aggressively used to enforce monopolies on products worldwide, creating artificial scarcity and dramatically affecting quality of life. In some cases there is conflict from the early stages of big science, or from the advance of technologies related to big science, with the products and patents - for example, it is easy now to get a genomic profile from a company like 23andme, which is cheap because of the Moore’s Law-like increases in genomic sequences and decreases in costs driven by big science. But if a woman were to ask for the profile to tell her if she had the genetic mutation for cancer, that would conflict with the Myriad Genetics patent on diagnosing the mutation, which is in the end products section. This kind of conflict can be expected to increase as consumer-driven sequencing explodes in coming years. There is also some interesting anecdotal evidence of interest by pharmaceutical companies in opening up their drug libraries to commons-influenced development for “rare” or “orphan” disease research, under arrangements in which the rights to commercially attractive uses of the drugs are retained by the companies in return for granting rights to less attractive uses under predefined terms of use.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read ''Genomics Knowledge Governance'' at [[Image: Genomics_Knowledge_Governance.pdf]] 
Read [[Sage - A Merck Project]] 
Read Annex 2 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Biotechnology_-_Genomic_and_Proteomics BGP Notes]

===[[Diagnostic Kits]]===

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Case Law Review|Case Law Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Literature Review|Literature Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Country Reports Review|Country Reports Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/USA Regulation Review|USA Regulation Review]] 
Check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits/Glossary/ DK Research Vocabulary]
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits DK Notes]

==[[Educational Materials]]==

* '''Evidence of commons-based industrial cooperation: educational materials'''

We found evidence of commons-based cooperation and production in the educational materials industry. The field of educational materials (EM) refers to a subset of the book, games, Internet, and software publishing industries that is focused on providing resources to a variety of educational market segments. EMs are available as both digital and non-digital solutions.

At the K-12 educational level, digital solutions include a range of technologies used to enhance the delivery and the administration of K-12 education, including data management systems, web-based course and assessment materials, and online tutoring and professional development—however, we focused on those digital solutions products that have specific educational purposes and where knowledge is embedded in a form that can be enclosed by some form of intellectual property. Regarding non-digital solutions, we included textbooks, course packs and other supplementary materials, and various educative toys and games.

Many of these products are experiencing market disruption as a result of rising commons-based production (CBP), which is in turn pushing the industry around EMs towards adopting commons-based industrial cooperation (CBIC) practices. There is a broad movement, known as Open Educational Resources (OER), in favor of treating educational and learning objects as open content products, which should be online, free of charge, available for remix under liberal copyright licenses, and in general subject to interpretation, iterative development, and redistribution. The OER movement is affecting educational policy at federal and local levels, and the power of the government as purchasing agent is playing a powerful role in creating market forces in the industry that favor cooperative approaches over competitive approaches.

We studied several instances of CBIC in educational materials, which are all presented on the wiki. The instances included Connexions, a software infrastructure for EMs that is flexible and modular. It is a novel teaching tool built and deployed for the Web, that supports not just text but collaboration in education and learning. Connexions features several aspects found about the commons-based EMs: the information is organized into smaller units than textbooks or chapters, web technology standards like XML are central to success, there are software and web tools to create, maintain, share and use content, there is a focus on community development and maintenance, and liberal Creative Commons copyright licenses ensure that the public’s legal rights are protected. Connexions has resulted also in radically lower textbook prices in some cases, showing how digital objects produced by the commons can affect the non-digital industrial economy of EMs.

Connexions in 2007 hosted more than 4000 learning modules, more than 220 courses or books, about 550,000 users, 2000 authors, and 200,000 hits per day from almost 200 countries. Since then the OER movement has only gained popularity and prominence, so we can expect these numbers to be higher today. It is a non profit project funded by philanthropic donations and grants.

Interestingly, we observed the emergence of for-profit OER producers like Qedoc, who focus their efforts on the creation of software tools rather than proprietary content, using a default rule of CC license usage in return for free-of-charge access to the software. We also profiled projects WikiEducator and Wikiversity, both of which apply a more traditional wiki model to planning education projects and creating learning resources. Each of these projects exists inside a universe of similar projects, demonstrating that the overall EM space is being dramatically changed by the impact of the Internet and accompanying commons-based effects. However, the traditional industry players are fighting against the advance of CBIC in many places, with strategies around customization that lock in clients where the content is commodity, but services are proprietary.

The EM industry is susceptible to commons effects for many reasons. One was that the government funders of EMs could begin prioritizing open resources as part of a focus on up-to-date materials and cost reductions, as we saw in debates from Texas and California. The government intervention on textbooks, for example, affects what was previously perceived to be the greatest barrier to OER (textbook adoption processes) and may have turned it into an advantage for OER. Another was that the industry already operated via copyright licensing, and therefore could leverage much of the infrastructure we associate with individual commons based cooperation, like liberal copyright licenses, wikis, mailing lists, and more, to allow individual cooperation with industrial players and open up space for novel projects like Connexions to challenge traditional industrial players by competing for new learners.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials/Paper EM Paper] 
Read [http://publius.cc/brief_overview_us_public_policy_oer_californias_community_colleges_obama_ad EM Essay] 
Read Annex 4 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials EM Notes]

==[[Telecommunications]]==
Read Annex 5 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Telecommunications Telecom Notes]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]

Diagnostic Kits

2010-10-16T21:15:50Z

WikiSysop: /* Legal Aspects of Diagnostics */

{{TOCright}}

===Introduction to Genetic and Genomic Diagnostics===

The field of Biotechnology is a critical US industry, by some estimates approaching 2% of the US GPD and growing 15% per year. Genetic and Genomic research represent a core focus of R&D in the biotechnology industry. Over the last 40 years, improvements in sequencing technology have led to massive increases in test precision and overall throughput capacity. These advances have bolstered the breadth of genetic and genomic research, and have allowed these fields to transcend from mere laboratory concepts to a number of practical, real world applications.

Today, these research efforts have contributed clinical diagnostic methods of testing that are capable of providing information specific to the genetic characteristics of an individual. The logical core of diagnostics is the link between a health state, such as a disease or drug response, and particular genetic sequence (often a mutation therein). Once this link is clinically established, a test can readily be developed based on existing techniques. Thus, the actual methods that are developed are not often based on new measurement or sampling techniques, but rather, newly discovered links between genotype and phenotype.

Through these tests a clinician can perceive a wealth of information, including an individual's disposition to develop complex diseases over time, such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, and diabetes, and allow the clinician to advise practical changes in lifestyle to minimize health future health risks or maximize preventative medical care. In cases where disease may already be present, some tests are useful for determining more efficient methods of treatment that are specific to that individual. The diagnostic tests range from single tests which evaluate a single gene and its affects to others, which are more comprehensive, and can evaluate samples on the genomic level, which are capable of analyzing multiple genetic factors.

These tests represent valuable assets to the companies who develop them and bring them to market in the form of consumer product offerings. Currently, diagnostic tests are being marketed to the public in a three different ways: Laboratory Developed Test Services, In Vitro Diagnostic Kits, and Tests Sold Directly to Consumers. It should be no surprise that these companies seek robust legal protection for their investments through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property intellectual property] ("IP") law. For instance, many companies obtain patents for their inventions that grant them a legal mechanism to exclude others from utilizing their research and development efforts. However, these protections occasionally affect research and development efforts of others in these fields negatively.

Emerging research in genetic and genomic diagnostics presents unique challenges for IP considerations. Changes in laboratory research due to actual or anticipated patent or license enforcement could signal the failure of protections secured through intellectual property to spur the innovations such protections are intended to promote. These issues are at the center of our research efforts under the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/4976 Industrial Cooperation Project] at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society]. This research is part of a broader project being led by Professor [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/ybenkler Yochai Benkler]. Through the research, we seek to understand the approaches to innovation with genetic diagnostic kits, and look specifically to the barriers to use and innovation.

==Defining Genetics and Genomics==
Occasionally, the terms "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics Genetics]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomics Genomics]" are used interchangeably within the context of genetic testing. More specifically, both terms are sometimes used to refer to the testing of specific genes or the indexing of multiple tests of single genes. '''Although we note there is a difference in these terms, we use these terms synonymously, except where specifically noted otherwise.'''

The difference between these terms is scientifically important because they refer to distinct concepts. These terms are often confused because the distinctions between "genetic" and "genomic" diagnostics are rarely delineated well, if at all. Consequently, discussions of their market, innovation cycles and the impact of intellectual property in the emergence of open or closed arrangements of cooperation is less than precise.

===The Distinctions Between Genetics and Genomics===
In simple terms, "Genetics" can be defined as the scientific study of single genes and their effects. Genes are units of heredity that carry the instructions for making proteins, which direct the activities of cells and functions of the body. Genetics is also term that refers to the study of genes and their role in inheritance - the way certain traits or conditions are passed down from one generation to another. Genes influence traits such as hair and eye color as well as health and disease development. Genetics determines much, but not all, of a person's appearance and health status. Environmental factors also play a part. Many disorders of the human body, such as disease and illness, are linked to abnormal gene function. For example, single gene disorders include cystic fibrosis and PKU (phenylketonuria). For more examples, see [http://www.Genome.gov National Human Genome Research Institute] and [http://www.CDC.gov The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].

Thus, "genetic testing" or "diagnostics" is testing of ''singular genes'', by assaying a relatively small sample containing DNA, to determine genotype and identify genetic abnormalities known to be link to disease. Additionally, these tests can determine the prognosis of disease, potential responses to drug treatment, and other factors related to the state of health of the sample provider.

On the other hand, "genomics" is a relatively new term that describes the study of all of a person's genes including interactions of those genes with each other and the person's environment. genomics involves the scientific study of complex diseases such as heart disease, asthma, diabetes and cancer because they are caused more by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. genomics is offering new possibilities for therapies and treatment of some diseases, as well as new diagnostic methods. The major tools and methods related to genomics studies are bioinformatics, genetic analysis, measurement of gene expression, and determination of gene function. More at Genome.gov and at and at CDC.gov genomics and Health Resources and CDC.gov Genomics Translation Resources

However, the phrases "genetic testing" "genomic testing" tend to be used differently than their respective scientific meanings. The majority of genetic tests that are available today are based on second generation sequencing platforms. Today, this type of diagnostic refers to the testing of fractions of the complete human genome of a person. These tests evaluate multiple genes and are significantly larger than what is typically analyzed in a typical singular gene sequencing test. Although whole genome sequencing is possible, these tests are quite expensive and the term "genomic testing" is used to refer to the tests of portions, or fractions, of the entire genome. Perhaps, a more apt term to define this type of diagnostic, is "multiplex genetic tests," because they represent genetic diagnostics that are highly parallelized and have a relatively high-throughput, but are not based on a complete genome sequence.

These multiplex or multiple gene tests are capable of many more measurements than genetic tests. Often these tests completely sequence several genes to the entire genome, or of hundreds of thousands of SNPs from a genomic sample and tend to use microarrays (sometimes called SNP chips or gene chips) or second generation (still called "next-generation" sequencing circa 2010), high-throughput DNA sequencing. Microarrays are widely used in direct-to-consumer genomic diagnostics designed to provide risk profiles for many genetic diseases at once. These tests are highly useful for more complex diseases that caused by ''multiple'' genetic abnormalities, rather than single abnormal genes. In this sense, genomic tests "provide comprehensive genetic risk profiles for many diseases or targeted genetic risk profiles for specific conditions." Examples of disease caused by multiple genetic disorders include asthma, heart disease, autism, cancer, and hypertension.

So, how can you determine whether a company is offering a genetic test, a genetic test that samples multiple genes, or a genomic test? It's often very difficult to determine on the basis of pure marketing materials. However, many company and laboratory website offer information which explain some of the scientific underpinnings on the services they offer. More often than not, a genetic testing service will not offer a low-cost genomic test--i.e., one that sequences that entire genome. Instead, these laboratories offer singular or multiple gene tests and combine the results into a single report. There are some laboratories who offer full genome sequencing, but these tests are priced into the tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands dollar range in the U.S.

See our sample list of laboratories who offer genetic and genomic testing services below.

==Genetic Test Applications==
Genetic tests are conducted through a variety of different testing procedures. Primarily, diagnostics utilize biochemical, cytogenetic, molecular, or a combination of these methods, to analyze DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, and metabolites. Genetic tests may be conducted as Clinical Tests, Research Tests, Investigative, or Recreational Tests. Note that these terms are distinct from the technical methods used in a diagnostic. Rather than describing the procedure, they describe the utility, clinical validity, or purpose of a test.
 
{| class="wikitable" border=1
|+
! Test Type !! Purpose of Test
|-align="center"
|''Clinical Tests''
|align="left" | Clinical level tests are used to examine sample specimens of individual patients for diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of genetic related disorders. The test results are reported from the laboratory back to the patient in writing. Laboratories who conduct these types of tests must be approved by the [http://www.cms.gov/clia/ Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments] (or "CLIA") program.
|-align="center"
|''Research Tests''
|align="left" | Research tests are conducted in laboratories and research centers to study and understand genetic conditions or to develop clinical level tests. These tests are not subject to CLIA approval and are conducted for internalized research purposes to develop advances in testing.
|-align="center"
|''Investigative and Recreational Tests''
|align="left" | Investigative and Recreational tests are considered valuable tests, but are those that have not gained either scientific validity or acceptance in the medical community. In short, these tests often are perceived to lack the accuracy of clinical level tests. Moreover, laboratories conducting these tests are not subject to CLIA approval.
|}
 

===Clinical Testing Purposes===
The largest category of diagnostic tests are used for clinical applications - i.e., in the course of treatment or diagnosis of diseases, and in the course of preventative medical care. In most circumstances, these tests are ordered by medical professionals. The following table illustrates the range testing purposes.
 
{|class="wikitable" border=1;
|+
!Test Objective !! Description
|-align="center"
|''Diagnostic''
|align="left" | These tests are used to confirm when a person has signs or symptoms of a genetic disease. The tests are tailored for diagnosing a particular disease. This includes diseases such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Down Syndrome] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_muscular_dystrophy Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy]. These types of diseases are linked to specific genetic disorders. If signs are present, such as the physical attributes associated with Down Syndrome, a genetic test can be used to determine if the patient has the extra copy of Chromosome 21.
|-align="center"
|''Predictive''
| align="left" | A predictive genetic test indicates a person's propensity to develop a disease before any symptoms are present. These types of tests are used for certain cancers, such as breast, colon, and ovarian cancer. The results of the tests can predict, with a margin of error, a person's percentage likelihood of developing these diseases over their lifetimes. Usually, externalized factors, such as age and lifestyle, are taken into consideration with the results to bolster test accuracy.
|-align="center"
|''Presymptomatic''
|align="left" | Presymptomatic tests are similar to predictive tests. These tests are used to determine risk for genetic conditions that are already known to be present in their family, but show no symptoms. Diseases such as Huntington's and Grave's disease are among commonly screened in presymptomatic testing. The test results allow doctors to give medical advice, and take preventative actions, to decrease the likelihood of occurrence or increase the chances of successful treatment.
|-align="center"
|''Preconception/Carrier''
|align="left" | Preconception or Carrier Tests can determine if individuals "carry" a alterations in their genes that are associated with an "autosomal recessive order." In short, people have a higher likelihood of developing certain diseases if they inherit two copies of altered chromosomes from their parents. If two people each have a copy of one chromosome, their children have a much higher likelihood of developing diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs Disease.
|-align="center"
|''Prenatal''
|align="left" | Prenatal tests are used to test fetuses during the course of pregnancy. These tests are especially useful for scenarios where a fetus has a higher likelihood of developing diseases. For instance, if both parents are carriers of genes related to autosomal recessive disorders, or where family history indicates a likelihood of development of Huntington's and Grave's disease.
|-align="center"
|''Newborn''
|align="left" | Similarly, newborn babies may also be screened after birth, or at an early age, when circumstances indicate a likelihood of development. For instance, one test analyzes blood samples for abnormal or missing genes or the presence of Phenylkentonuria (PKU), a type of metabolic disease that can cause severe mental retardation without early treatment.
|-align="center"
|''Pharmacogenic''
|align="left" | Pharmacogenic screening is a type of genetic test that may indicate a person's response to certain types of drug treatment. This type of test can enable practitioners to select the best methods of treatment after a disease as already been diagnosed.
|}
 

==How Genetic Tests are Developed by Manufacturers and Laboratories==

The process of developing and marketing a genetic test is riddled with technicalities of oversight by the FDA and a handful of other U.S. regulatory agencies. In summary, there are two pathways that developers typically take in the course of bringing a genetic test to market. First, some tests are developed as full testing kits by ''manufacturers'' of medical devices. These testing kits are classified by the FDA as "''in-vitro'' diagnostic" (IVD) devices and subsequently sold to laboratories who conduct the actual testing services. Second, some tests are developed solely by laboratories as "laboratory developed tests" (LDTs) for use in-house, solely within the laboratory, and are not sold to any outside entities.

At the heart of almost every genetic test, whether considered an IVD or an LDT, are the "active ingredients" needed to conduct the test. These ingredients usually constitute analyte-specific reagents (ASRs), which are specially prepared polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies - biochemical substances that are used in a genetic test to identify or quantify certain chemical substances or ligands in biological specimens. Once an person with the proper skill has the correct ASRs, he or she only needs the necessary equipment and instructions on testing procedures and result interpretation, a genetic test can easily be conducted. Since the ASRs are so critical to the test itself, they often represent a significant amount of research and development effort on behalf of the company or laboratory who formulates the ASRs.

Interestingly, the federal regulations which govern IVDs and LDTs have left what many commentator believe to be regulatory loopholes that make development of a LDT genetic test the more attractive pathway than a IVD. Perhaps for this reason the majority of genetic tests available are LDTs. For more information on the regulatory aspects of IVDs and LDTs see our [[Diagnostic_Kits/USA_Regulation_Review|U.S. Regulatory Review Page]]

===IVDs===

As mentioned, "testing kits" are IVDs under the FDA regulations. The final product of a testing kit typically contains a series of instructions that detail how to conduct the test and the necessary ASRs to conduct the test. These tests are regulated as "medical devices" under FDA regulations and are subject to stringent regulation. The FDA oversees and require certain approvals and certification before such a device can be sold on the market. For many IVDs, these regulations include the approval prior to sale on the market, oversight of all aspects of the production process and ultimate sale of the IVD, and oversight of the actual testing procedures within laboratories to ensure the IVD is safe and effective for its intended purposes.

===LDTs===

LDTs can be developed in two ways. First, the majority of LDT tests utilize ASRs which are developed in-house, solely for use within the laboratory. The test designs and procedures are proprietary to the laboratory and are not sold for use to any outside entities. In short, the laboratory is markets the test to and obtains the necessary specimens directly from consumers. Once received, the specimen is processed in the test and results are reported directly back to the consumer in writing or on the internet through a secure website interface. As previously mentioned, this type of LDT is not subject to the same level of regulatory oversight as is an IVD.

A second, but somewhat less common method of developing an LDT, is accomplished when a laboratory develops the test design and procedures, but does not develop the necessary ASRs for use in the test. Instead, the laboratory obtains the ASRs by purchasing them from an outside entity and incorporates the ASRs into their test. In this circumstance, the test is marketed and conducted in the same manner as the other type of LDT. Unlike the completely proprietary LDTs which are not subject to stringent regulation, the process of purchasing ASRs is subject to some regulation, but still not as much as is the IVDs. Importantly, the ''sellers'' of the ASRs, rather than the LDT laboratories, tend to be the entities who must satisfy federal regulations for the sale of ASRs. For this reason, this type of LDT is still an attractive option when a laboratory cannot develop and entirely proprietary LDT.

==How Genetic Tests are Marketed and Accessed by Consumers and Patients==
===Patients and Clinically Ordered Tests===

Traditionally, the pathway for a patient or consumer to access genetic testings has been through a medical professional, such as a physician, who '''clinically orders''' a test in the course of medical care to for the purposes of diagnosis or disease prevention. These tests allow medical professionals to obtain information about a patient's predisposition to certain diseases, or to diagnose an individuals current illness, future illness, or predict the responsiveness of certain drugs in treatment.

After determining that a genetic test is appropriate, a family doctor, or other health care professional, will typically use a genetic "test kit," which has been supplied by a manufacturer or laboratory. The test kit contains instructions on how to obtain specimen and submit it to the laboratory (sometimes a separate entity than the manufacturer) for testing . Specimens can range from a buccal (saliva) swab to blood or bodily tissue. Once collected, the specimen is sent to the laboratory for testing. The results are reported back to the doctor directly along with instructions to aid in the interpretations of results. Of course, following the results, the doctor can then advise the patient with recommendations for treatment or preventative care.

These testing kits are generally considered "medical devices" by the FDA and are subject to stringent level of oversight that governs the device prior to its sale on the market, to the process of manufacturing the kits, and the laboratory testing procedures. For more information on the regulatory aspects of genetic testing, see out [[Diagnostic_Kits/USA_Regulation_Review|U.S. Regulatory Overview]] page.

===Tests Marketed Directly to Consumers===
Although medical professionals continue to order and use genetic testing in the course of clinical care, the decrease in cost and increase in availability of testing services has made it easier for patients and consumers to access genetic testing without the need of a visit to a physician's office. Essentially, consumers have '''directly access''' to genetic testing services directly through laboratories marketed through online websites or by purchasing over-the-counter kits from retail stores. No prescription or order by a medical professional is necessary. These tests are commonly referred to as '''direct-to-consumer (DTC)''' tests, a reference to how such tests are marketed to consumers. Within the DTC paradigm, patients and consumers typically mail a specimen, like a buccal swab or smear, in a container to a laboratory or company which then processes the test and provides test results in writing or over a secure internet interface. These results remain private to the consumer and are not included in any medical records.

DTC genetic tests purport to offer many similar capabilities - in terms providing information on health risks and disease disposition - as do the clinically ordered tests by a physician. Often these tests provide the consumer with either percentage of likelihood of developing a disease within one's lifetime. However, one significant difference between the physician-ordered tests and those sold directly to a consumer is that test results are often not interpreted by a medical professional. Instead, the company or laboratory who provides the testing services are communicate the test results combined with their own analytic interpretations directly to the consumer. Many commentators criticize DTC tests because they lack the personalized approach to test result interpretation by a professional, especially in instances where results indicate a percentage calculation which indicates potential health risks or status. More specifically, in many cases genetic testing services do not account for externalized environmental factors which are known to affect the probability of a person's health status.

Additionally, although the links between many genetic tests and occurrence of diseases are widely accepted in the scientific and medical communities, many genetic tests are not stringently regulated or approved by the FDA for use in the diagnosis or prevention of disease. This means that most DTC tests are not approved by the FDA prior to commercialization on the market and there is little oversight that governs the practices of companies and laboratories conducting such tests. In some circumstances, the methods of testing may vary widely. Some commentators, including a U.S. committee on genetics from the Department of Health and Human Services, are concerned that the differences between how test is prepared or conducted may ultimately affect the accuracy and proficiency of test results. Moreover, these discrepancies are often not well communicated to the consumers.

Since the awareness - and in particular, the almost prolific discussion in popular media - of genetic tests continues to increase, the future may hold more stringent regulations of genetic product marketing by the FDA and the FTC. For more information on the regulatory aspects of genetic testing, see out [[Diagnostic_Kits/USA_Regulation_Review|U.S. Regulatory Overview]] page.

==Manufacturers and Laboratories who Develop or Offer Genetic Testing Services==

Below is a list of companies known to market genetic testing. Where applicable and to the extent known, the list notes whether the testing services are being marketed directly to consumers as either a "direct-access" test or where test manufacturers and developers are selling testing "kits" as IVDs or LDT genetic testing services. Additionally, this list provides some distinction to testing services that provide full genomic sequencing or singular or multivariate gene testing.

Please note that there many companies and manufacturers involved in the development of genetic testing - this should not be considered a comprehensive list of market participants.

=== Genome Sequencing Manufacturers and Service Providers===
* [http://www.illumina.com/ Illumina]
* [http://www.454.com/ 454 Life Sciences] (a Roche Company)
* [http://www.iontorrent.com/ Ion Torrent]
* [http://www.completegenomics.com Complete Genomics]
* [http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/ Pacific Biosciences]
* [http://www.helicosbio.com/ Helicos Biosciences Corporation]
* [http://www.intelligentbiosystems.com/ Intelligent Bio-Systems]
* [http://www.genomecorp.com/ Genome Corp]
* [http://knome.com/home/ Knome]
* [http://www.personalgenomes.org/ Personal Genome Project]

===DTC and Clinical Genetic Testing Manufacturers and Service Providers===
* [http://cpmc.coriell.org/ Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaboration]
* [http://www.23andme.com/ 23 and Me]
* [http://www.decodeme.com/ DeCODEme]
* [http://www.counsyl.com/ Counsyl]
* [http://www.navigenics.com/ Navigenics]
* [http://www.pathway.com/ Pathway Genomics]
* [http://www.dnadirect.com/web/ DNA Direct]
* [http://genomichealth.com/ Genomic Health]
* [http://www.dnatribes.com/ DNA Tribes]
* [http://www.bioresolve.com/ Bio Resolve]
* [http://www.myriad.com Myriad Genetics]
* [http://www.responsegenetics.com/ Response Genetics]
* [http://www.ilgenetics.com/ Interleukin Genetics]
* [http://www.exactsciences.com/ Exact Sciences]
* [http://www.genomichealth.com/ Genomic Health]
* [http://www.nanosphere.us/ Nanosphere]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetics_research_organizations Wikipedia's List of Genetics Research Organizations]

==Legal Aspects of Diagnostics==
===[[Diagnostic Kits/Case Law Review|Case Law Review]]===
===[[Diagnostic Kits/Country Reports Review|Country Reports Review]]===
===[[Diagnostic Kits/USA Regulation Review|USA Regulation Review]]===

==Study of the field==
General Analysis of the field based on our [[ICP Main Questions]]
# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in Kits]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the Kits' sector]]
# Outputs and Products of the field: [[data, narratives and tools produced by the Kits' sector]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of Kits' sector: [[IP in Kits]]
# [[competitive advantages in Kits]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in Kits]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in Kits]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in Kits]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in Kits]]
# [[Commons based cases in Kits]]
# [[Peer-Production Business models in Kits]]
# [[Open Business models in Kits]]

==Resources==
The following resources may helpful for understanding key concepts discussed in our research:

===[[Diagnostic_Kits/Glossary|Research Vocabulary]]===
===[[Diagnostic Kits/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Diagnostic Kits/Bibliography by Resource Type | Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Navigation==
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Diagnostic_Kits]]

Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics

2010-10-16T21:10:58Z

WikiSysop: /* Resources */

{{TOCright}}

== Field definition ==

===Basic Definition===

Simply defined, biotechnology is any technology that relies on living organisms or biological systems. By this definition, human beings have been using biotechnology for thousands of years to produce food products, textiles and other necessary items. Several familiar items -- including yeast-rising bread, yogurt, cheese, wine, beer and vinegar -- are all produced with the help of cultured microorganisms.

In recent years, however, the term "biotechnology" has come to mean the use of genetic engineering and its associated techniques. This more common definition is found in a variety of applications, from medicine to agriculture.

Human genomics is of critical importance to health and welfare, used by firms as the foundation for innovation in many applications, from enviromental and medical to industrial and agriculture products.

The US biotechnology industry includes about 1,000 companies, with combined annual revenue close to $50 billion. Large companies include [http://www.amgen.com/ Amgen], [http://www.monsanto.com/ Monsanto], [http://www.gene.com/gene/index.jsp Genentech], and [http://www.biogenidec.com/ Biogen]. The biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industries overlap considerably, since many drugs are now developed using biotechnology. The industry consists of a few very large companies and many very small ones, and is fragmented by type of product. Most companies have annual sales under $50 million.

Industry overview here: [http://bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp Biotechnology Industry Organization]

Key Industry Statistics

Key Industry Figures 2008

* Industry Revenue: 85,695.4$Mil

* Revenue Growth: 12.9%

* Industry Gross Product: 58,539.2 $Mil

* Number of Establishments: 6,815 Units

* Number of Enterprises: 6,480 Units

* Employment: 341,000 Units

* Exports: 7,251$Mil

* Imports: 2,954.7$Mil

* Total Wages: *20,630.9$Mil

Source: [http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/retail.aspx?indid=2001&chid=1 Ibis World]

===Focus Market Segments===

Genomics is the study of the genomes of organisms. The field includes intensive efforts to determine the entire DNA sequence of organisms and fine-scale genetic mapping efforts. The field also includes studies of intragenomic phenomena and other interactions between loci and alleles within the genome and the techniques of sequencing, genome mapping, data storage, and bioinformatic analyses. The wide range of genomics outputs means that the entire range of intellectual property rights come into play at some point in the cycle. Roughly speaking we can divide the knowledge products into narratives, data, and inventions, and use these as a tool to divide up the field for our case study.

From initial R&D to the moment when a target product is developed for licensing to Pharmaceutical or Agricultural companies, we will study the following:

* Data production: Genomic or proteomic sequences

* Narrative production: Journals focused on biotechnology and related disciplines; publications of data; descriptions of tools or patents, or commentaries on them

* Tool production: processes for producing data or physical products

===Genomics===
The science of genomics is focused on the study of the genomes of organisms. The field includes intensive efforts to determine the entire DNA sequence of organisms and fine‐scale genetic mapping efforts to determine the activity and function of genes. Genomic scientists produce genetic, pathway, and functional information analysis about the genome in attempts to place the DNA code in context inside living beings, typically in order to improve human health or advance agricultural technology. 
The first techniques that can be related to genomics were the development of sequencing, genome mapping, data storage, and bioinformatics analyses in the 1970‐1980s. This period also marks the birth of the first biotechnology industries in the USA. Amgen and Genentech are the oldest examples still in the market and are models for other startups in terms of business models. The high uncertainty and asymmetry of information characteristic of the biotechnology industry transformed the field, from a commercial perspective into an archipelago of high‐specialized islands of knowledge. Collaborations inside the industry have since that time been characterized by the “big deal” involving a complex transfer of IP, future royalties, data, investment, and employee sharing. Such collaborations are rarely open to outside parties and are themselves asymmetrical in their treatment of property.
[[Image:GenomicsIP.jpg]] 
PD=Public Domains; C = Copyright; P = Patents; TS = Trade Secret; Con = Contracts, including Material Transfer Agreements; N = Community construed norms.
===Proteomics===
In terms of data and narrative outputs, proteomics is very similar. There is fundamental and observational data, though there is no “human proteome project” like the HGP to serve as an aggregating actor for commons based efforts. There are many smaller efforts that we can study including databases in structural genomics and protein data. 
For protein tools, antibodies are the biggest category. We can classify all sorts of antibodies for specific study like cytokines, neurotrophins, etc. There is also a growing system for protein expression like gene expression that depends on antibodies, but also now can use all sorts of genomic tools. So the genomic tools are now becoming proteomic tools as well. Also, access to the same stem cells and mice is essential if the research is going to translate to cures. It will be interesting to look and see if the same desire for treating the outputs of research as inputs to new research we saw in the fundamental genomic data space apply here. 
Some other kinds of protein tech would include high throughput screening array technology (the robots that test drugs against proteins) and software tools: structure prediction, identification, properties, alignment. Proteomics research is very intensive in terms of computation and software (much more complex than genomics – more similar in some ways to climate change and weather modeling in terms of complexity). 
We should probably expect to discuss the impact of patents as biomarker / diagnostic marker. Gene patents haven't had the expected impact of anticommons, but protein patents are extremely valuable and frequently enforced. 
[[Image:ProteomicsIP.jpg]] 
PD=Public Domains; C = Copyright; P = Patents; TS = Trade Secret; Con = Contracts, including Material Transfer Agreements; N = Community construed norms.

===Deprioritized Market Segments===

Tools such as software for biotechnology (bio-informatics) and other biological tools not genetically modified.

===Excluded From Field Definition===

We will not study data, process, or tool production once a target product is licensed to pharmaceutical or agricultural products

== Study of the field ==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in BGP]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the BGP field]]
# Outputs and Products of the field: [[data, narratives and tools produced by the BGP field]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of BGP field: [[IP in BGP]]
# [[competitive advantages in BGP]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in BGP]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in BGP]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in BGP]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in BGP]]
# [[Commons based cases in BGP]]
# [[Peer-Production Models in BGP]]
# [[Open Business models in BGP]]

== Special Cases in BGP ==
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will be later trasformed in papers under BGP Field Intellectual Property Profile.
===Genomics===
*[[Sage - A Merck Project]]
* [[History PCR]]
**A brief history of license practices in BGP - the case of PCR

===[[Diagnostic Kits]]===
===[[Vaccines]]===
===Biotech and Energy===
*[[Algae for Energy]]
* [[Bacterias for Energy]]

== Resources ==
=== [[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]] ===
=== [[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics/Others|Others]]===

==Navigation==

[[Main Page]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-16T21:03:48Z

WikiSysop: /* Publications */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper/ Alternative Energy Background Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/ Essay on EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
See: [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-16T21:03:26Z

WikiSysop: /* Essay */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper/ Alternative Energy Background Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/ Essay on EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
See: [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-16T21:03:03Z

WikiSysop: /* Paper */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper/ Alternative Energy Background Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/ Essay on EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
[http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-16T21:02:50Z

WikiSysop: /* Paper */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper / Alternative Energy Background Paper]

[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/ Essay on EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
[http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-16T21:01:01Z

WikiSysop: /* Essay on EFRC Survey */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==
[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/ Essay on EFRC Survey]

Based on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy#Survey_with_EFRCs/ this Survey]

==Essay==
[http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy

2010-10-16T20:59:18Z

WikiSysop: /* Publications */

{{TOCright}}
= Field definition =
==Basic Definition==
"According to New Energy Finance, the clean energy sector grew to over $148 billion in 2007, up forty-one percent from 2006 despite the last summer’s credit crunch."(Ward et all, 2008) 

Alternative energy technologies produce energy while causing less environmental damage than traditional means of energy production like the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Alternative energy technologies are also referred to as clean technology (Cleantech) or renewable energy technology. Alternative energies are an array of distinct technologies, services, and products that are designed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions while promoting efficient energy use and the conservation of natural resources. These technologies vary immensely in [http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ type], innovation cycles, maturity and technoeconomic readiness. They can also be divided into energy supply and energy end-use innovations. Energy supply technologies are those that produce energy for use by consumers, while energy end-use technologies are those that promote efficient use of that energy. Alternative energy supply technologies include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, tidal, wave & ocean energy, nuclear, hydropower, fuel cells, clean coal, and certain types of high-efficiency, low emissions combined cycle natural gas turbines. Energy end-use technologies include energy efficient lightbulbs, home appliances, and fuel efficient, hybrid, or plug-in automobiles. Our research is focused on three energy supply technologies, solar, wind, and tidal/wave. 

The importance of alternative energy technologies is not only environmental, but also geopolitical. The US goal of energy security - a deeper politicized issue - is motivated by the objectives of reducing the dependency on foreign sources of oil, controlling prices, and achieving a diversity of energy supplies. 

The primary barriers to a wide adoption of alternative energy technologies are their higher cost relative to fossil fuels, the resistance to their adoption from the incumbent fossil technologies that hold great power in the industry and with the government, and the inconsistent and often ineffectual government subsidy programs that help bridge the price gap between alternative technologies and the incumbents. Due to these barriers, alternative energy technologies have not gained the widespread use to compete with fossil fuel technologies, and have generally gained very limited market share. Greater R&D funding, both public and private, and government subsidies to stimulate the demand for these technologies, will be needed to bring the costs of the technologies down and encourage their adoption at levels that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore reduce the US’s carbon emissions. 

A wide variety of actors are involved in the alternative energy sector including government agencies, universities, and [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Bibliography_on_Industry_Profile Alternative Energy Companies]. Additionally, venture capitalists, nonprofit organizations, environmental advocates, and attorneys all play important supporting roles. 

Conferences and State Task Forces provide important collaboration opportunities. Identification of challenges and opportunities for projects may be established at these meetings and collaboration continues through email contact and conference calls. Government agencies and universities appear to be more eager to participate in data sharing than energy companies who are less consistent in sharing their data. While there may be differences between the main actors when it comes to data and research sharing, collaboration on policy appears to be strong from all the actors in this sector. 

An example of industry collaboration can be seen in the “Iowa Alliance for Wind Innovation and Novel Development” which is a partnership between “state and local governments, the community colleges, universities, the private sector, associations and community organizations, and the federal government.” 

The information above is largely the result of impressions of the alternative energy sector collected through research and experience.

==Focus Market Segments==
* Wind
** Wind energy refers generally to the utilization of wind for generating power with turbine technology. Effective wind power generation is related to the performance of wind turbines, which are capable of adjusting the blade angles and orientation such that the angle of attack with respect to the wind direction is changed to increase energy capture. Following the recent push for wind power to be a mainstream player in the world’s energy markets, there is an increasing need to improve reliability and turbine performance, and to develop technologies for effective largescale wind plants. It is certain that increased development efforts and innovation will be required to expand the wind energy industry. See: [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/ ''Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan For 2007-2012'' and other reports]
* Solar
** "solar energy development is moving solar technologies on a path toward full competitiveness with conventional power generation. One example of solar technologies is photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various other thin-film materials. Another example is concentrating solar power technologies, which use reflective materials to concentrate the sun’s heat energy, ultimately driving a generator to produce electricity. These technologies include dish/engine systems, parabolic troughs, and central power towers. To overcome the cost-effective challenges of solar energy, there is an intense interest in developing new materials, photovoltaic cell designs, and large-scale solar energy systems." (Ward et al, 2008)
* Tidal
** "The development technology that generates electricity from ocean waves, tides, and river currents is still in its infancy." (Lane et al. 2007)
** "Because the development and application of these technologies are in the precommercial stage, the regulatory requirements governing their implementation are not always clear." (Lane et al. 2007)
***Lane, N., Congress, L.O. & Service, C.R., 2007. Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. In Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Available @ http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL33883.pdf
** "Ocean energy comes in a variety of forms such as geothermal vents, and ocean currents and waves. The most commercially viable resources studied so far are ocean currents and waves which have both undergone limited commercial development." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
** "Most importantly, waves are a regular source of power with an intensity that can be accurately predicted several days before their arrival [4], more predictable than wind or solar energy." (Muetze & Vining n.d.)
***Muetze, A. & Vining, J.G., Ocean Wave Energy Conversion-A Survey. In Proceedings 41 st EEE Industry Applications Conference. pp. 1410-1417. Available @ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/conferencepublications/ias37p2.pdf

==Deprioritized Market Segments==
* Geothermal energy generation
* Biofuels
* Nuclear
* Clean coal
* Other Water technologies, such as Hydropower

==Excluded From Field Definition==
* Energy storage
* New pollution-pollution abatement
* Recycling
* Cleaning technologies
* Carbon control technologies

=Publications=

==[[Paper]]==
[[Possible journal or working paper submission sites]]

==Essay on EFRC Survey==

At [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/Essay on EFRC Survey]

==Essay==
[http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ The Political Economy of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Alternative Energy Market] 
By Carolina Rossini and Silas Bauer

=Background Research and Resources for Publications=

==Study of the field==

Analysis of the field with basis on [[ICP Main Questions]]

# [[Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in AE]]
# [[Give an overall picture of the AE field]]
# [[Country AE Profiles]]
# [[Innovations in Wind, Solar and Tidal]]
# Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of AE field: [[IP in AE]]
# [[competitive advantages in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of non-profit companies in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Universities working in AE]]
# [[IP Profile of Associations in AE]]
# [[Commons based cases in AE]]

== Bibliographies ==
===[[Alternative_Energy/Bibliography by Research Question | Bibliography by Research Question]]===
===[[Alternative Energy/Bibliography by Resource Type |Bibliography by Resource Type]]===

==Survey with EFRCs==
We assembled a questionnaire that was sent to a number the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC). The EFRCs are new US Department of Energy centers tasked with particular areas of alternative energy research. Our goal was to determine how their government R&D funds are being allocated and how intellectual property is treated in theses centers, and if there is any knowldge governance structured which spur openness and cooperation.

*[[Alternative Energy/More on the EFRCs Survey| More on the EFRCs Survey]]

Additionally, we wanted to capture if and how the government is suggesting or mandating specific knowledge governance arrangements that favor openness and cooperation. Thus, we developed a series of questions and, after trying to perform the interview by phone, we sent them to [http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/Robin_Hayes.html Dr. Robin Hayes], a AAAS Fellow working with the EFRC management team. See: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Questions posed to the DOE-Office of Basic Energy Sciences].

=Possible Special Case Studies in AE=
Under this section we will explore possible special case studies that will later be transformed into papers under the AE Field Intellectual Property Profile.
*http://www2.dupont.com/Energy_and_Utilities/en_US/
*[http://www2.dupont.com/Open_Science/en_US/global_energy.html Open Science and Alternative Energy Innovation]

=Spring Conference=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cooprenewablesworkshop/Main_Page AE Conference Official Page]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-10-16T20:54:28Z

WikiSysop: AE Essay on EFRC Survey moved to Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

#REDIRECT [[Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-10-16T20:54:28Z

WikiSysop: AE Essay on EFRC Survey moved to Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

PAPER UNDER OFFLINE DEVELOPMENT

Under the assertion that history has demonstrated that radically new technologies arise from disruptive advances at the science frontiers, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/BES.html (BES)] in the U.S. [http://www.er.doe.gov/ Department of Energy’s Office of Science] has established a $100 million Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) initiative as one of the outputs of more than 8 years of work and 11 workshops, which resulted in the BESCA report [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination]. The research programs developed by the EFRC aim to address the energy challenges described in the ten BES workshop reports - [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html The 10 Basic Research Needs Workshop Reports].

The EFRC initiative is part of a broader vision of government support throughout the innovation value chain of alternative energy. While the EFRCs initiative is focused on the upstream of the alternative energy value chain, the Advanced Research Projects Agency [http://arpa-e.energy.gov (ARPA-E)] initiative – established in accordance to the National Academies 2006 report, [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”] - addresses [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/About.aspx translational issues <ref> ARPA-E will identify and promote revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences, translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty. Specifically, ARPA-E was established and charged with the following objectives:
1.To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract many of the U.S.’s best and brightest minds—those of experienced scientists and engineers, and, especially, those of students and young researchers, including persons in the entrepreneurial world;
2.To focus on creative “out-of-the-box” transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic benefits for the nation;
3.To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and
4.To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.
</ref> and the [http://www.energy.gov/hubs Energy Innovation Hubs] are focused on building cross-disciplinary and public-private partnerships to bring to market alternative energy innovations. It is interesting to understand the context for this governmental commitments to invest in the alternative energy research, development and deployment. As pointed in the [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Budget.aspx ARPA-E’s Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification], the US must step up in order to compete globally:

“The U.S. must step up its clean energy efforts. The U.S. market share in sales of photovoltaics, a technology first developed in the U.S., has fallen from over 40 percent of world-wide sales in 1997 to less than 10 percent in 2009. The U.S. is home to only one of the 10 largest solar panel producers in the world, and two of the top 10 advanced battery manufacturers. The U.S. and global hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) battery market is dominated by Asian companies. In 2008 the U.S. accounted for less than 2 percent of worldwide sales of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries for HEV. Future HEV/plug- in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)/electric vehicle (EV) battery demand will be met by Asian producers, currently dominated by Japan, South Korea, and China, without transformative American innovation in advanced batteries. In another facet, the U.S. energy intensity in buildings far exceeds that of similar buildings in similar climates in China and Europe. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the U.S. is; and has plans to deploy 120 gigawatts of wind power in the next 10 years, equal today’s global total, which will create an estimated 150,000 jobs. Of the top five manufacturers in wind power, only one is American.”

This three-tier structure was the answer from the Obama Administration to two main challenges: assuring clean, secure, and sustainable energy to power the world, and establishing a new foundation for enduring economic and jobs growth in USA. As Secretary Chu declared, when [http://www.energy.gov/7768.htm announcing] the selection of the new EFRC centers in August 2009:

“Meeting the challenge to reduce our dependence on imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions will require significant scientific advances. These centers will mobilize the enormous talents and skills of our nation’s scientific workforce in pursuit of the breakthroughs that are essential to expand the use of clean and renewable energy.”

In contrast to traditional fossil fuel-based technologies, clean energy technologies are considered to be in their infancy, operating far below their potential, with many scientific and technological challenges to overcome, specifically in regard to near-term industry needs. (BESAC-DOE, 2010) <ref> www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SET_rpt.pdf </ref> In this context, the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are designed to address energy and science “grand challenges.” The 46 EFRCs are funded at $2 - $5 million a year for 5 years, and were chosen from over 260 applicant institutions. In total the program represents $777 million in DOE funding over five years.

The EFRC initiative represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research – from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus 46 EFRCs], 31 are led by Universities, 1 by General Electrics in partnerships with Universities and others by National Labs. Each institution received funding for a particular center doing research on a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus particular type of clean technology], and in some cases more than one center at a particular institution was awarded funding.

Thus, and as part of the Industrial Cooperation Project [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch (ICP)], under the Alternative Energy Sector analysis, we decided to investigate further the structure of knowledge governance <ref> The “knowledge governance approach” is characterized as a distinctive, emerging approach that cuts across the fields of knowledge management, organization studies, strategy, and human resource management. Knowledge governance is taken up with how the deployment of governance mechanisms influences knowledge processes, such as sharing, retaining and creating knowledge. It insists on clear micro (behavioral) foundations, adopts an economizing perspective, and examines the links between knowledge-based units of analysis with diverse characteristics and governance mechanisms with diverse capabilities of handling these transactions. Research issues that the knowledge governance approach illuminates are sketched. [[AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC_Resources_and_Bibliography|(Foss, 2007)]]</ref> of the EFRCs publicly funded knowledge outputs.

Some general questions were in the background of our mind - “How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors? How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?” - and guided a broader survey <ref> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf </ref> which was sent to the 46 EFRCs.

= Methodology =

= Methodology =

= Footnotes =
<references />

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-06-28T23:18:13Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-06-28T23:15:23Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

PAPER UNDER OFFLINE DEVELOPMENT

Under the assertion that history has demonstrated that radically new technologies arise from disruptive advances at the science frontiers, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/BES.html (BES)] in the U.S. [http://www.er.doe.gov/ Department of Energy’s Office of Science] has established a $100 million Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) initiative as one of the outputs of more than 8 years of work and 11 workshops, which resulted in the BESCA report [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination]. The research programs developed by the EFRC aim to address the energy challenges described in the ten BES workshop reports - [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html The 10 Basic Research Needs Workshop Reports].

The EFRC initiative is part of a broader vision of government support throughout the innovation value chain of alternative energy. While the EFRCs initiative is focused on the upstream of the alternative energy value chain, the Advanced Research Projects Agency [http://arpa-e.energy.gov (ARPA-E)] initiative – established in accordance to the National Academies 2006 report, [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”] - addresses [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/About.aspx translational issues <ref> Specifically, ARPA-E was established and charged with the following objectives:
1.To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract many of the U.S.’s best and brightest minds—those of experienced scientists and engineers, and, especially, those of students and young researchers, including persons in the entrepreneurial world;
2.To focus on creative “out-of-the-box” transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic benefits for the nation;
3.To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and
4.To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.
</ref> and the [http://www.energy.gov/hubs Energy Innovation Hubs] are focused on building cross-disciplinary and public-private partnerships to bring to market alternative energy innovations. It is interesting to understand the context for this governmental commitments to invest in the alternative energy research, development and deployment. As pointed in the [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Budget.aspx ARPA-E’s Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification], the US must step up in order to compete globally:

“The U.S. must step up its clean energy efforts. The U.S. market share in sales of photovoltaics, a technology first developed in the U.S., has fallen from over 40 percent of world-wide sales in 1997 to less than 10 percent in 2009. The U.S. is home to only one of the 10 largest solar panel producers in the world, and two of the top 10 advanced battery manufacturers. The U.S. and global hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) battery market is dominated by Asian companies. In 2008 the U.S. accounted for less than 2 percent of worldwide sales of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries for HEV. Future HEV/plug- in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)/electric vehicle (EV) battery demand will be met by Asian producers, currently dominated by Japan, South Korea, and China, without transformative American innovation in advanced batteries. In another facet, the U.S. energy intensity in buildings far exceeds that of similar buildings in similar climates in China and Europe. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the U.S. is; and has plans to deploy 120 gigawatts of wind power in the next 10 years, equal today’s global total, which will create an estimated 150,000 jobs. Of the top five manufacturers in wind power, only one is American.”

This three-tier structure was the answer from the Obama Administration to two main challenges: assuring clean, secure, and sustainable energy to power the world, and establishing a new foundation for enduring economic and jobs growth in USA. As Secretary Chu declared, when [http://www.energy.gov/7768.htm announcing] the selection of the new EFRC centers in August 2009:

“Meeting the challenge to reduce our dependence on imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions will require significant scientific advances. These centers will mobilize the enormous talents and skills of our nation’s scientific workforce in pursuit of the breakthroughs that are essential to expand the use of clean and renewable energy.”

In contrast to traditional fossil fuel-based technologies, clean energy technologies are considered to be in their infancy, operating far below their potential, with many scientific and technological challenges to overcome, specifically in regard to near-term industry needs. (BESAC-DOE, 2010) <ref> www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SET_rpt.pdf </ref> In this context, the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are designed to address energy and science “grand challenges.” The 46 EFRCs are funded at $2 - $5 million a year for 5 years, and were chosen from over 260 applicant institutions. In total the program represents $777 million in DOE funding over five years.

The EFRC initiative represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research – from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus 46 EFRCs], 31 are led by Universities, 1 by General Electrics in partnerships with Universities and others by National Labs. Each institution received funding for a particular center doing research on a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus particular type of clean technology], and in some cases more than one center at a particular institution was awarded funding.

Thus, and as part of the Industrial Cooperation Project [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch (ICP)], under the Alternative Energy Sector analysis, we decided to investigate further the structure of knowledge governance <ref> The “knowledge governance approach” is characterized as a distinctive, emerging approach that cuts across the fields of knowledge management, organization studies, strategy, and human resource management. Knowledge governance is taken up with how the deployment of governance mechanisms influences knowledge processes, such as sharing, retaining and creating knowledge. It insists on clear micro (behavioral) foundations, adopts an economizing perspective, and examines the links between knowledge-based units of analysis with diverse characteristics and governance mechanisms with diverse capabilities of handling these transactions. Research issues that the knowledge governance approach illuminates are sketched. [[AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC_Resources_and_Bibliography|(Foss, 2007)]]</ref> of the EFRCs publicly funded knowledge outputs.

Some general questions were in the background of our mind - “How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors? How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?” - and guided a broader survey <ref> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf </ref> which was sent to the 46 EFRCs.

= Methodology =

= Methodology =

= Footnotes =
<references />

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-06-28T23:14:21Z

WikiSysop:

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

PAPER UNDER OFFLINE DEVELOPMENT

Under the assertion that history has demonstrated that radically new technologies arise from disruptive advances at the science frontiers, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/BES.html (BES)] in the U.S. [http://www.er.doe.gov/ Department of Energy’s Office of Science] has established a $100 million Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) initiative as one of the outputs of more than 8 years of work and 11 workshops, which resulted in the BESCA report [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination]. The research programs developed by the EFRC aim to address the energy challenges described in the ten BES workshop reports - [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html The 10 Basic Research Needs Workshop Reports].

The EFRC initiative is part of a broader vision of government support throughout the innovation value chain of alternative energy. While the EFRCs initiative is focused on the upstream of the alternative energy value chain, the Advanced Research Projects Agency [http://arpa-e.energy.gov (ARPA-E)] initiative – established in accordance to the National Academies 2006 report, [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”] - addresses [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/About.aspx translational issues <ref> Specifically, ARPA-E was established and charged with the following objectives:
1.To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract many of the U.S.’s best and brightest minds—those of experienced scientists and engineers, and, especially, those of students and young researchers, including persons in the entrepreneurial world;
2.To focus on creative “out-of-the-box” transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic benefits for the nation;
3.To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and
4.To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.
</ref> and the [http://www.energy.gov/hubs Energy Innovation Hubs] are focused on building cross-disciplinary and public-private partnerships to bring to market alternative energy innovations. It is interesting to understand the context for this governmental commitments to invest in the alternative energy research, development and deployment. As pointed in the [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Budget.aspx ARPA-E’s Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification], the US must step up in order to compete globally:

“The U.S. must step up its clean energy efforts. The U.S. market share in sales of photovoltaics, a technology first developed in the U.S., has fallen from over 40 percent of world-wide sales in 1997 to less than 10 percent in 2009. The U.S. is home to only one of the 10 largest solar panel producers in the world, and two of the top 10 advanced battery manufacturers. The U.S. and global hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) battery market is dominated by Asian companies. In 2008 the U.S. accounted for less than 2 percent of worldwide sales of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries for HEV. Future HEV/plug- in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)/electric vehicle (EV) battery demand will be met by Asian producers, currently dominated by Japan, South Korea, and China, without transformative American innovation in advanced batteries. In another facet, the U.S. energy intensity in buildings far exceeds that of similar buildings in similar climates in China and Europe. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the U.S. is; and has plans to deploy 120 gigawatts of wind power in the next 10 years, equal today’s global total, which will create an estimated 150,000 jobs. Of the top five manufacturers in wind power, only one is American.”

This three-tier structure was the answer from the Obama Administration to two main challenges: assuring clean, secure, and sustainable energy to power the world, and establishing a new foundation for enduring economic and jobs growth in USA. As Secretary Chu declared, when [http://www.energy.gov/7768.htm announcing] the selection of the new EFRC centers in August 2009:

“Meeting the challenge to reduce our dependence on imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions will require significant scientific advances. These centers will mobilize the enormous talents and skills of our nation’s scientific workforce in pursuit of the breakthroughs that are essential to expand the use of clean and renewable energy.”

In contrast to traditional fossil fuel-based technologies, clean energy technologies are considered to be in their infancy, operating far below their potential, with many scientific and technological challenges to overcome, specifically in regard to near-term industry needs. (BESAC-DOE, 2010) <ref>www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SET_rpt.pdf </ref> In this context, the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are designed to address energy and science “grand challenges.” The 46 EFRCs are funded at $2 - $5 million a year for 5 years, and were chosen from over 260 applicant institutions. In total the program represents $777 million in DOE funding over five years.

The EFRC initiative represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research – from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus 46 EFRCs], 31 are led by Universities, 1 by General Electrics in partnerships with Universities and others by National Labs. Each institution received funding for a particular center doing research on a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus particular type of clean technology], and in some cases more than one center at a particular institution was awarded funding.

Thus, and as part of the Industrial Cooperation Project [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch (ICP)], under the Alternative Energy Sector analysis, we decided to investigate further the structure of knowledge governance <ref> The “knowledge governance approach” is characterized as a distinctive, emerging approach that cuts across the fields of knowledge management, organization studies, strategy, and human resource management. Knowledge governance is taken up with how the deployment of governance mechanisms influences knowledge processes, such as sharing, retaining and creating knowledge. It insists on clear micro (behavioral) foundations, adopts an economizing perspective, and examines the links between knowledge-based units of analysis with diverse characteristics and governance mechanisms with diverse capabilities of handling these transactions. Research issues that the knowledge governance approach illuminates are sketched. [[AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC_Resources_and_Bibliography|(Foss, 2007)]]</ref> of the EFRCs publicly funded knowledge outputs.

Some general questions were in the background of our mind - “How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors? How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?” - and guided a broader survey <ref> [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf </ref> which was sent to the 46 EFRCs.

= Methodology =

= Methodology =

= Footnotes =
<references />

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-06-28T23:12:16Z

WikiSysop:

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

PAPER UNDER OFFLINE DEVELOPMENT

Under the assertion that history has demonstrated that radically new technologies arise from disruptive advances at the science frontiers, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/BES.html (BES)] in the U.S. [http://www.er.doe.gov/ Department of Energy’s Office of Science] has established a $100 million Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) initiative as one of the outputs of more than 8 years of work and 11 workshops, which resulted in the BESCA report [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination]. The research programs developed by the EFRC aim to address the energy challenges described in the ten BES workshop reports - [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html The 10 Basic Research Needs Workshop Reports].

The EFRC initiative is part of a broader vision of government support throughout the innovation value chain of alternative energy. While the EFRCs initiative is focused on the upstream of the alternative energy value chain, the Advanced Research Projects Agency [http://arpa-e.energy.gov (ARPA-E)] initiative – established in accordance to the National Academies 2006 report, [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”] - addresses [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/About.aspx translational issues <ref> Specifically, ARPA-E was established and charged with the following objectives:
1.To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract many of the U.S.’s best and brightest minds—those of experienced scientists and engineers, and, especially, those of students and young researchers, including persons in the entrepreneurial world;
2.To focus on creative “out-of-the-box” transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic benefits for the nation;
3.To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and
4.To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.
</ref> and the [http://www.energy.gov/hubs/ Energy Innovation Hubs] are focused on building cross-disciplinary and public-private partnerships to bring to market alternative energy innovations. It is interesting to understand the context for this governmental commitments to invest in the alternative energy research, development and deployment. As pointed in the [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Budget.aspx ARPA-E’s Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification], the US must step up in order to compete globally:

“The U.S. must step up its clean energy efforts. The U.S. market share in sales of photovoltaics, a technology first developed in the U.S., has fallen from over 40 percent of world-wide sales in 1997 to less than 10 percent in 2009. The U.S. is home to only one of the 10 largest solar panel producers in the world, and two of the top 10 advanced battery manufacturers. The U.S. and global hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) battery market is dominated by Asian companies. In 2008 the U.S. accounted for less than 2 percent of worldwide sales of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries for HEV. Future HEV/plug- in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)/electric vehicle (EV) battery demand will be met by Asian producers, currently dominated by Japan, South Korea, and China, without transformative American innovation in advanced batteries. In another facet, the U.S. energy intensity in buildings far exceeds that of similar buildings in similar climates in China and Europe. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the U.S. is; and has plans to deploy 120 gigawatts of wind power in the next 10 years, equal today’s global total, which will create an estimated 150,000 jobs. Of the top five manufacturers in wind power, only one is American.”

This three-tier structure was the answer from the Obama Administration to two main challenges: assuring clean, secure, and sustainable energy to power the world, and establishing a new foundation for enduring economic and jobs growth in USA. As Secretary Chu declared, when [http://www.energy.gov/7768.htm announcing] the selection of the new EFRC centers in August 2009:

“Meeting the challenge to reduce our dependence on imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions will require significant scientific advances. These centers will mobilize the enormous talents and skills of our nation’s scientific workforce in pursuit of the breakthroughs that are essential to expand the use of clean and renewable energy.”

In contrast to traditional fossil fuel-based technologies, clean energy technologies are considered to be in their infancy, operating far below their potential, with many scientific and technological challenges to overcome, specifically in regard to near-term industry needs. [www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SET_rpt.pdf/ (BESAC-DOE, 2010)] In this context, the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are designed to address energy and science “grand challenges.” The 46 EFRCs are funded at $2 - $5 million a year for 5 years, and were chosen from over 260 applicant institutions. In total the program represents $777 million in DOE funding over five years.

The EFRC initiative represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research – from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus 46 EFRCs], 31 are led by Universities, 1 by General Electrics in partnerships with Universities and others by National Labs. Each institution received funding for a particular center doing research on a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus particular type of clean technology], and in some cases more than one center at a particular institution was awarded funding.

Thus, and as part of the Industrial Cooperation Project [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch (ICP)], under the Alternative Energy Sector analysis, we decided to investigate further the structure of knowledge governance <ref> The “knowledge governance approach” is characterized as a distinctive, emerging approach that cuts across the fields of knowledge management, organization studies, strategy, and human resource management. Knowledge governance is taken up with how the deployment of governance mechanisms influences knowledge processes, such as sharing, retaining and creating knowledge. It insists on clear micro (behavioral) foundations, adopts an economizing perspective, and examines the links between knowledge-based units of analysis with diverse characteristics and governance mechanisms with diverse capabilities of handling these transactions. Research issues that the knowledge governance approach illuminates are sketched. [[AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC_Resources_and_Bibliography|(Foss, 2007)]]</ref> of the EFRCs publicly funded knowledge outputs.

Some general questions were in the background of our mind - “How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors? How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?” - and guided a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf/ broader survey] which was sent to the 46 EFRCs.

= Methodology =

= Methodology =

= Footnotes =
<references />

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-06-28T23:11:04Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

PAPER UNDER OFFLINE DEVELOPMENT

Under the assertion that history has demonstrated that radically new technologies arise from disruptive advances at the science frontiers, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/BES.html (BES)] in the U.S. [http://www.er.doe.gov/ Department of Energy’s Office of Science] has established a $100 million Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) initiative as one of the outputs of more than 8 years of work and 11 workshops, which resulted in the BESCA report [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination]. The research programs developed by the EFRC aim to address the energy challenges described in the ten BES workshop reports - [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html The 10 Basic Research Needs Workshop Reports].

The EFRC initiative is part of a broader vision of government support throughout the innovation value chain of alternative energy. While the EFRCs initiative is focused on the upstream of the alternative energy value chain, the Advanced Research Projects Agency [http://arpa-e.energy.gov (ARPA-E)] initiative – established in accordance to the National Academies 2006 report, [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”] - addresses [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/About.aspx translational issues <ref> Specifically, ARPA-E was established and charged with the following objectives:
1.To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract many of the U.S.’s best and brightest minds—those of experienced scientists and engineers, and, especially, those of students and young researchers, including persons in the entrepreneurial world;
2.To focus on creative “out-of-the-box” transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic benefits for the nation;
3.To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and
4.To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.
</ref> and the [http://www.energy.gov/hubs/ Energy Innovation Hubs] are focused on building cross-disciplinary and public-private partnerships to bring to market alternative energy innovations. It is interesting to understand the context for this governmental commitments to invest in the alternative energy research, development and deployment. As pointed in the [http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/Budget.aspx ARPA-E’s Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification], the US must step up in order to compete globally:

“The U.S. must step up its clean energy efforts. The U.S. market share in sales of photovoltaics, a technology first developed in the U.S., has fallen from over 40 percent of world-wide sales in 1997 to less than 10 percent in 2009. The U.S. is home to only one of the 10 largest solar panel producers in the world, and two of the top 10 advanced battery manufacturers. The U.S. and global hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) battery market is dominated by Asian companies. In 2008 the U.S. accounted for less than 2 percent of worldwide sales of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries for HEV. Future HEV/plug- in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)/electric vehicle (EV) battery demand will be met by Asian producers, currently dominated by Japan, South Korea, and China, without transformative American innovation in advanced batteries. In another facet, the U.S. energy intensity in buildings far exceeds that of similar buildings in similar climates in China and Europe. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the U.S. is; and has plans to deploy 120 gigawatts of wind power in the next 10 years, equal today’s global total, which will create an estimated 150,000 jobs. Of the top five manufacturers in wind power, only one is American.”

This three-tier structure was the answer from the Obama Administration to two main challenges: assuring clean, secure, and sustainable energy to power the world, and establishing a new foundation for enduring economic and jobs growth in USA. As Secretary Chu declared, when [http://www.energy.gov/7768.htm announcing] the selection of the new EFRC centers in August 2009:

“Meeting the challenge to reduce our dependence on imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions will require significant scientific advances. These centers will mobilize the enormous talents and skills of our nation’s scientific workforce in pursuit of the breakthroughs that are essential to expand the use of clean and renewable energy.”

In contrast to traditional fossil fuel-based technologies, clean energy technologies are considered to be in their infancy, operating far below their potential, with many scientific and technological challenges to overcome, specifically in regard to near-term industry needs. [www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SET_rpt.pdf (BESAC-DOE, 2010)] In this context, the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are designed to address energy and science “grand challenges.” The 46 EFRCs are funded at $2 - $5 million a year for 5 years, and were chosen from over 260 applicant institutions. In total the program represents $777 million in DOE funding over five years.

The EFRC initiative represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research – from the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus 46 EFRCs], 31 are led by Universities, 1 by General Electrics in partnerships with Universities and others by National Labs. Each institution received funding for a particular center doing research on a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/EFRC_Technology_Focus particular type of clean technology], and in some cases more than one center at a particular institution was awarded funding.

Thus, and as part of the Industrial Cooperation Project [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch (ICP)], under the Alternative Energy Sector analysis, we decided to investigate further the structure of knowledge governance <ref> The “knowledge governance approach” is characterized as a distinctive, emerging approach that cuts across the fields of knowledge management, organization studies, strategy, and human resource management. Knowledge governance is taken up with how the deployment of governance mechanisms influences knowledge processes, such as sharing, retaining and creating knowledge. It insists on clear micro (behavioral) foundations, adopts an economizing perspective, and examines the links between knowledge-based units of analysis with diverse characteristics and governance mechanisms with diverse capabilities of handling these transactions. Research issues that the knowledge governance approach illuminates are sketched. [[AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC_Resources_and_Bibliography|(Foss, 2007)]]</ref> of the EFRCs publicly funded knowledge outputs.

Some general questions were in the background of our mind - “How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors? How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?” - and guided a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf broader survey] which was sent to the 46 EFRCs.

= Methodology =

= Methodology =

= Footnotes =
<references />

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

ICP Sectors

2010-06-08T13:16:44Z

WikiSysop: /* Alternative Energy */

{{TOCright}}

=Introduction=

This section presents the high-level synthesis of the work. It should be used as a reading guiad, assisting the ICP Wiki user to navigate its contents.

==[[Alternative Energy]]==

In Alternative Energy, we found enormous recent activity and investment in the development of new tools and products worldwide, and an exponential grown in the number of patents mirrors this activity. We began our research with the intention of limiting our scope to the US only, but given the global scope of the alternative energy market, and the fact that almost all the market leading companies have grown in foreign countries where the markets for this technology have been biggest and which can be considered historical centers of technology innovation, we chose to include Germany, Denmark, and Spain. Additionally, among the countries considered emerging economies, we decided to look at China for the geopolitical implications relating to its relationship with the United States, but also for its surprising and fast growing number of patents.The potential reasons for this may be many, but some are attributable to consistent combination of push and pull policy choices in some of those countries.

We chose wind, solar and tidal/wave technologies with the expectation that we would find variations among their approaches to openness and closedness, since the technologies represent different levels of maturity and patenting activity. The maturity can be measured both by the stage of development of the technology and the stage of development of the market. For instance, wind is considered a mature technology because it is fairly well understood, and the cost of generating electricity with wind turbines is closer to the cost of conventional sources of fossil fuel generated electricity - though it is still more expensive. Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is less mature and can be quite expensive, therefore the research and innovation around solar PV technologies is sure to play a critical role in bringing its costs down and generating more efficient technology. Tidal/wave technology is relatively immature compared to wind and solar, and is mostly in the demonstration phase at this time.

What we found was relatively traditional industrial innovation practice - research and development at big companies, venture-backed startups, investment by governments in national laboratories with traditional knowledge and technology transfer processes in place. The end products and their industrial sellers appear to be much less affected by emergent commons-based processes than software, culture, and educational materials. They are products like massive wind turbines or solar arrays, physically manufactured at high expense, covered by entire families of patents, and subject to a very traditional innovation paradigm. The wind market is concentrated amend some top industries that have been acquiring small innovative companies for many decades. We did find some uptake and endorsement of open source software, especially around the advance of Smart Grid technologies, though we did not research deeper on that, as well as intriguing new projects around access to energy data, which point to intriguing hypotheses about how CBP could emerge in the field and begin to disrupt the industry in the future.

There is clearly a desire by many of the key stakeholders in energy to “change the game” and increase the overall rate of innovation in renewable energy. This desire has been expressed in the US very clearly in President Obama’s innovation strategies, including by Energy Secretarty Chu and Commerce Secretary Locke. The OpenEI (to share smart grid data in a manner consistent with the US data.gov system), U.S. OpenLabs, and the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Energy (DSIRE) all point towards the intrusion of new market forces into what has been a fairly traditional industrial sector, one that has had more in common with the creation of airplanes or automobiles than with software engineering or educational materials construction. The Obama administration is also working with new market forces via the Kauffman Foundation for entrepreneurship, hosting (and even webcasting) events at the White House and in general positioning itself as a force for more openness in energy data and potentially in technologies. In a recent meeting (05/08/2010), knowledge sharing and new way to bring research from universities into development and the market were key themes, in addition to the necessity of generating jobs within the US borders.

It is estimated that, until recently, 2/3s of investment into alternative energy R&D within the USA came from the private sector, however, there is a broad acceptance that the government should be the responsible for investing in new, risky, and possible disruptive, basic research for innovation within AE. This is due also to the disappearance of large corporate laboratories - such as Xerox Lab, BellLab, and others - which has increased the importance of national labs and universities as key players for early stage innovative research. Thus, after a couple of decades with low public investment in renewables R&D - as of 2007, federal support for energy R&D had fallen by more than half since a high point in 1978, and private-sector energy R&D has similarly fallen - , a recent major investment under the recovery plan (ARRA 2009) was devised. By analyzing the innovation pipeline of alternative energy a series of programs were devised by the DOE. At the basic research level, 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) within Universities and National Labs were created. The EFRC represents an increased emphasis on the importance of university based research, and expands the R&D funding for this research. At the translational level, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) was created and modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ARPA-E will fund energy technology projects that translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and will be distributed through awarding grants, cooperative agreements or Technology Investment Agreements The program should also accelerate technological advances in high-risk areas that industry is not likely to pursue independently. And, finally, the Energy Innovation Regional Clusters (E-RIC) aimed spur regional economic growth while developing innovative energy efficient building technologies, designs, and systems.

This desire by the US is actually preceded by private and public interventions elsewhere. Denmark saw industrial cooperation on “vertical stacks” of wind technologies in the 1990s, in which competition was voluntarily restricted by companies in order to achieve greater interoperability, and the wind industry in the US also collaborated via informal “club” arrangements hosted at Stanford to achieve more reliable gearboxes without demanding new patent applications and licensing. So the US government entry is not without precedent, but the power of the US government to change the market is indeed a major new player in the industrial cooperation arrangements we expect to see in the next decade.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Alternative Energy/Paper|Paper]] 
Read [http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/08/08/the-political-economy-of-ip-in-the-emerging-alternative-energy/ AE Essay] 
Read [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]] 
Read Annex 3 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy AE Notes]

==[[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]]==

Inside Biotechnology - Genomics and Proteomics, we found a mixture of commons-based production and more traditional, closed practices depending on the point in the value chain where we looked.

The fields of genomics and proteomics represent a rich research base for an analysis of cooperative behavior and commons-based knowledge generation - there are long-established actors, projects, and cooperative systems, covering most of the classes of products produced by biotech, and across a wide range of tools and knowledge. There is massive investment by public and private players across the research cycle, ranging from fundamental “big science” projects where data is treated as infrastructure to intermediate “translational research” where the basic discoveries are converted to potentially useful health interventions, to marketable products like genetic therapies and diagnostic kits.

“Big science” projects show the most evidence of commons-based effects on industry. The emergence of a commons in “big science genomics” is easiest to see in basic genome sequencing. Via the Human Genome Project (the genome common to all humans), the HapMap (a mapping of the genomic variation that makes us unique individuals), and follow-on projects, big government investments and accompanying public domain rules dramatically affected the industry of genomics, leading to the eventual exit from the market of corporate players like Celera from the business of selling genome databases. The commons in gene sequences also sparked the emergence of commons-based production in functional genome annotation, where the Distributed Annotation System allows for individual observations about the functions of specific gene sequences on disparate computers “snap together” to form a cohesive, parallel-generated view of genomic function.

Most big science happens through government investment in university and its outputs in the data and text products are now open by default (due to the Bermuda Rules and the NIH Public Access Policy), although tools and inventions frequently are subjected to competitive withholding and patenting. We did not observe significant evidence of commons-based industrial disruption in biological materials, research tools, although the Personal Genome Project and the efforts of private foundations investing in disease-specific research as well as a new set of technology transfer “principles” for licensing may create the conditions for such disruption in coming years. The iBridge Network by the Kauffman Foundation is also trying to disrupt the technology transfer market via an e-commerce model, though it is not explicitly a commons-based approach and instead simply focuses on lower transaction costs and increased transparency.

“Translational research” has traditionally been the province of biotechnology startups funded by venture capital, placing a high value on patents and trade secrets and thus has been resistant to commons effects as an industry. There are attempts to create “open source drug discovery” as seen in India, but most of those successes are actually more similar to big science - genotyping organisms versus identifying potential drug targets or potential drug interventions.

However, research on the translational research industry itself indicates not only that the industry is failing under its existing business models but provide tantalizing clues that a commons may be a viable approach: the only factors that correlate to an increase in the rates of drug discovery are those related to the total number of searchers. This research comes at the same time that new, non-profit entities like Sage Bionetworks are moving into the domains traditionally dominated by companies in the industry, explicitly adopting commons-based approaches. Sage is not performing research in order to generate IP, instead performing competitive translational research like target prioritization, drug response stratification, and even clinical studies under a business model in which the “profit” is the right to deposit data and outcomes into a digital commons, and marks a truly disruptive “port” of the commons model into the genomics industrial paradigm.

The end products market has been the most resistant to commons-based effects. Drugs, diagnostic kits, vaccines, and other products that are actually marketed to people exist under a strong regulatory regime that provides very high costs to entrants. Patents are aggressively used to enforce monopolies on products worldwide, creating artificial scarcity and dramatically affecting quality of life. In some cases there is conflict from the early stages of big science, or from the advance of technologies related to big science, with the products and patents - for example, it is easy now to get a genomic profile from a company like 23andme, which is cheap because of the Moore’s Law-like increases in genomic sequences and decreases in costs driven by big science. But if a woman were to ask for the profile to tell her if she had the genetic mutation for cancer, that would conflict with the Myriad Genetics patent on diagnosing the mutation, which is in the end products section. This kind of conflict can be expected to increase as consumer-driven sequencing explodes in coming years. There is also some interesting anecdotal evidence of interest by pharmaceutical companies in opening up their drug libraries to commons-influenced development for “rare” or “orphan” disease research, under arrangements in which the rights to commercially attractive uses of the drugs are retained by the companies in return for granting rights to less attractive uses under predefined terms of use.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read ''Genomics Knowledge Governance'' at [[Image: Genomics_Knowledge_Governance.pdf]] 
Read [[Sage - A Merck Project]] 
Read Annex 2 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Biotechnology_-_Genomic_and_Proteomics BGP Notes]

===[[Diagnostic Kits]]===

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Case Law Review|Case Law Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Literature Review|Literature Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/Country Reports Review|Country Reports Review]] 
Read [[Diagnostic Kits/USA Regulation Review|USA Regulation Review]] 
Check the [DK Research Vocabulary]
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Page_for_Joint_Creation_of_Blog_Post DK Essay] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Diagnostic_Kits DK Notes]

==[[Educational Materials]]==

* '''Evidence of commons-based industrial cooperation: educational materials'''

We found evidence of commons-based cooperation and production in the educational materials industry. The field of educational materials (EM) refers to a subset of the book, games, Internet, and software publishing industries that is focused on providing resources to a variety of educational market segments. EMs are available as both digital and non-digital solutions.

At the K-12 educational level, digital solutions include a range of technologies used to enhance the delivery and the administration of K-12 education, including data management systems, web-based course and assessment materials, and online tutoring and professional development—however, we focused on those digital solutions products that have specific educational purposes and where knowledge is embedded in a form that can be enclosed by some form of intellectual property. Regarding non-digital solutions, we included textbooks, course packs and other supplementary materials, and various educative toys and games.

Many of these products are experiencing market disruption as a result of rising commons-based production (CBP), which is in turn pushing the industry around EMs towards adopting commons-based industrial cooperation (CBIC) practices. There is a broad movement, known as Open Educational Resources (OER), in favor of treating educational and learning objects as open content products, which should be online, free of charge, available for remix under liberal copyright licenses, and in general subject to interpretation, iterative development, and redistribution. The OER movement is affecting educational policy at federal and local levels, and the power of the government as purchasing agent is playing a powerful role in creating market forces in the industry that favor cooperative approaches over competitive approaches.

We studied several instances of CBIC in educational materials, which are all presented on the wiki. The instances included Connexions, a software infrastructure for EMs that is flexible and modular. It is a novel teaching tool built and deployed for the Web, that supports not just text but collaboration in education and learning. Connexions features several aspects found about the commons-based EMs: the information is organized into smaller units than textbooks or chapters, web technology standards like XML are central to success, there are software and web tools to create, maintain, share and use content, there is a focus on community development and maintenance, and liberal Creative Commons copyright licenses ensure that the public’s legal rights are protected. Connexions has resulted also in radically lower textbook prices in some cases, showing how digital objects produced by the commons can affect the non-digital industrial economy of EMs.

Connexions in 2007 hosted more than 4000 learning modules, more than 220 courses or books, about 550,000 users, 2000 authors, and 200,000 hits per day from almost 200 countries. Since then the OER movement has only gained popularity and prominence, so we can expect these numbers to be higher today. It is a non profit project funded by philanthropic donations and grants.

Interestingly, we observed the emergence of for-profit OER producers like Qedoc, who focus their efforts on the creation of software tools rather than proprietary content, using a default rule of CC license usage in return for free-of-charge access to the software. We also profiled projects WikiEducator and Wikiversity, both of which apply a more traditional wiki model to planning education projects and creating learning resources. Each of these projects exists inside a universe of similar projects, demonstrating that the overall EM space is being dramatically changed by the impact of the Internet and accompanying commons-based effects. However, the traditional industry players are fighting against the advance of CBIC in many places, with strategies around customization that lock in clients where the content is commodity, but services are proprietary.

The EM industry is susceptible to commons effects for many reasons. One was that the government funders of EMs could begin prioritizing open resources as part of a focus on up-to-date materials and cost reductions, as we saw in debates from Texas and California. The government intervention on textbooks, for example, affects what was previously perceived to be the greatest barrier to OER (textbook adoption processes) and may have turned it into an advantage for OER. Another was that the industry already operated via copyright licensing, and therefore could leverage much of the infrastructure we associate with individual commons based cooperation, like liberal copyright licenses, wikis, mailing lists, and more, to allow individual cooperation with industrial players and open up space for novel projects like Connexions to challenge traditional industrial players by competing for new learners.

'''* Keep reading:''' 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials/Paper EM Paper] 
Read [http://publius.cc/brief_overview_us_public_policy_oer_californias_community_colleges_obama_ad EM Essay] 
Read Annex 4 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Educational_Materials EM Notes]

==[[Telecommunications]]==
Read Annex 5 of the Progress Report for Ford Foundation at [[Image:FFPregressReport.pdf]] 
Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Telecommunications Telecom Notes]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:30:14Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:28:15Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:27:58Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:26:59Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:26:15Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:23:49Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:22:37Z

WikiSysop: /* Introduction */

AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography

2010-05-20T00:22:11Z

WikiSysop: /* Bibliography */

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

= Notes =
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
= Lime Survey =
*This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
*[http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]

=Bibliography=
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
* Foss, Nail. (2007) The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and Characteristics. Organization. 14: 29-52. Available at: http://org.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/29

= Navigation =
Back to [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]] 
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:19:37Z

WikiSysop:

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

PAPER UNDER OFFLINE DEVELOPMENT

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography

2010-05-20T00:18:50Z

WikiSysop: /* Navigation */

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

= Notes =
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
= Lime Survey =
*This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
*[http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]

=Bibliography=
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
= Navigation =
Back to [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]] 
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography

2010-05-20T00:18:33Z

WikiSysop: /* Lime Survey */

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

= Notes =
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
= Lime Survey =
*This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
*[http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]

=Bibliography=
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
= Navigation =
Back to [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]]
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography

2010-05-20T00:18:09Z

WikiSysop:

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

= Notes =
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
= Lime Survey =
** This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
** [http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]
=Bibliography=
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
= Navigation =
Back to [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]]
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography

2010-05-20T00:16:50Z

WikiSysop:

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
* Lime Survey
** This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
** [http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]
= Navigation =
Back to [[AE Essay on EFRC Survey]]
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography

2010-05-20T00:15:50Z

WikiSysop: New page: * [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs] * [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.p...

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:15:41Z

WikiSysop: /* EFRC Resources and Bibliography */

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:15:26Z

WikiSysop: /* [AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography] */

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

=[[AE Essay on EFRC Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]]=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
* Lime Survey
** This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
** [http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Alternative Energy/AE Essay on EFRC Survey

2010-05-20T00:14:59Z

WikiSysop: /* Resources */

{{TOCright}}
=Introduction=

=[AE_Essay_on_EFRC_Survey/EFRC Resources and Bibliography|EFRC Resources and Bibliography]=
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/EFRC_Energy_Frontier_Research_Centers_%28EFRCs%29 Research Notes on EFRCs]
* [http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/EFRC_brochure.pdf EFRC Brochure]
* Lime Survey
** This survey has been sent to each of the United States' Department of Energy, Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). The survey was designed by Carolina Rossini, Research Fellow, and Silas Bauer, Research Associate from the Industrial Cooperation Project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard. The purpose of our research is to determine the level of "openness" or "closedness" of the research conducted in companies, institutions, and DOE labs in the alternative energy technology industry. By asking the following questions we are trying to determine if the research being conducted at one of the initial 46 EFRC is more open or more closed in regard to the level of information sharing and use of intellectual property arrangements. We were also looking for data on any knowledge sharing guidelines/rules that may be attached to the public funding the EFRC received from the US government through the DOE.
** [http://cooperationproject.limequery.org/admin/admin.php Lime Survey on EFRC]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeService_Questions4EFRC.pdf Lime Survey Questions]
** [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/sites/commonsbasedresearch/images/LimeSurveyResults.pdf Lime Survey Results on EFRC]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commonsbasedresearch/Alternative_Energy/Paper#R.26D_Investment_in_the_United_States Public Investment within USA]
* [http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html BES Basic Research Needs Reports]

= Navigation =
Back to [[ICP Reports and Working Papers]] 
Back to [[ICP Sectors]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

[[Category:Alternative Energy]]

Lessig

2010-05-19T23:11:24Z

WikiSysop:

{{TOCright}}
=Lessig, Defining the Commons=

''Rough approach at a definition of a commons'': ''a resource, permission to which is granted neutrally and which is known to be granted neutrally. Commons are sustained through both norms and architecture (sometimes built from a base of private, exclusive resources), and exhibit transparency, modularity, portability, innovativeness, and openness.''

==Notice what this definition of the commons does not mention==
* common ownership
* rules for using the resource
* symmetric control

==Permission rights must be ''granted neutrally'', and must be ''known to be granted neutrally''==
* permission, if necessary, is granted neutrally
* commons requires open accessibility
* it's not just that people don't need permission âÃÃ¬ it's that they ''know'' that they don't need permission, and is the fact that they know they never will that inspires innovation in a commons

==Withholding==
*No ''individual dictator'' can withhold a common resource from others (leaves open the possibility of a group withholding the resource from others)'''
* no exclusive right to choose whether the resource is made available to others
* direction of the permission: it's that everyone has a right to use the resource, it's ''not'' that no one has a right to stop someone from using a resource.
* for their own survival, commons projects usually lean towards democratic control

==Commons can have ''limited communities''==
* commons can be limited to a relevant community

==Commons regulated through ''norms'' and ''architecture''==
* rivalrous commons can be sustained through norms
* commons can be ''formed'' through both norms and technical architecture
* implicit: commons requires a shared background knowledge

==Commons can ''exist on top of'' ''exclusive resources'' (phone lines, GNU licenses, etc.)==
* commons can exist upon a layer of control
* open and closed systems by necessity exist together
* licenses can be used to keep things in the commons

==Commons require ''transparency'', ''modularity'', and ''portability'' to be truly common''==
* commons seems to require transparency, modularity, and portability

==Commons resources are often ''more valuable when held in common''==
* two reasons we have traditionally put resources into common ownership: (1) the resource can be monopolized and used against the public, and (2) the properties are most valuable when held in common.
* it is sometimes more efficient to hold a property in common than exclusively
* Sometimes we want to put a resource in common ownership because the resource becomes more valuable when more people use it.

==You must be able to ''innovate upon'' common resources''==
* commons resources can be tinkered with
* innovation commons allows building upon past resources

==Commons resources ''cannot be (easily) manipulated'' against competing resources==
* commons resources cannot be used strategically
* putting a resource in the commons checks its power: the resource cannot be used strategically to undermine other resources

==Common resources can feature two kinds of ''openness''==
*(1) ability to take a resource without permission
*(2) ability to contribute back to resource without authorization

=Navigation=

Back to [[Defining the Commons]] 
Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

Lessig

2010-05-19T23:11:08Z

WikiSysop:

=Lessig, Defining the Commons=

''Rough approach at a definition of a commons'': ''a resource, permission to which is granted neutrally and which is known to be granted neutrally. Commons are sustained through both norms and architecture (sometimes built from a base of private, exclusive resources), and exhibit transparency, modularity, portability, innovativeness, and openness.''

==Notice what this definition of the commons does not mention==
* common ownership
* rules for using the resource
* symmetric control

==Permission rights must be ''granted neutrally'', and must be ''known to be granted neutrally''==
* permission, if necessary, is granted neutrally
* commons requires open accessibility
* it's not just that people don't need permission âÃÃ¬ it's that they ''know'' that they don't need permission, and is the fact that they know they never will that inspires innovation in a commons

==Withholding==
*No ''individual dictator'' can withhold a common resource from others (leaves open the possibility of a group withholding the resource from others)'''
* no exclusive right to choose whether the resource is made available to others
* direction of the permission: it's that everyone has a right to use the resource, it's ''not'' that no one has a right to stop someone from using a resource.
* for their own survival, commons projects usually lean towards democratic control

==Commons can have ''limited communities''==
* commons can be limited to a relevant community

==Commons regulated through ''norms'' and ''architecture''==
* rivalrous commons can be sustained through norms
* commons can be ''formed'' through both norms and technical architecture
* implicit: commons requires a shared background knowledge

==Commons can ''exist on top of'' ''exclusive resources'' (phone lines, GNU licenses, etc.)==
* commons can exist upon a layer of control
* open and closed systems by necessity exist together
* licenses can be used to keep things in the commons

==Commons require ''transparency'', ''modularity'', and ''portability'' to be truly common''==
* commons seems to require transparency, modularity, and portability

==Commons resources are often ''more valuable when held in common''==
* two reasons we have traditionally put resources into common ownership: (1) the resource can be monopolized and used against the public, and (2) the properties are most valuable when held in common.
* it is sometimes more efficient to hold a property in common than exclusively
* Sometimes we want to put a resource in common ownership because the resource becomes more valuable when more people use it.

==You must be able to ''innovate upon'' common resources''==
* commons resources can be tinkered with
* innovation commons allows building upon past resources

==Commons resources ''cannot be (easily) manipulated'' against competing resources==
* commons resources cannot be used strategically
* putting a resource in the commons checks its power: the resource cannot be used strategically to undermine other resources

==Common resources can feature two kinds of ''openness''==
*(1) ability to take a resource without permission
*(2) ability to contribute back to resource without authorization

=Navigation=

Back to [[Defining the Commons]] 
Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

Boyle

2010-05-19T23:08:08Z

WikiSysop:

{{TOCright}}
=Jamie Boyle, Defining the Commons=

''A rough attempt at a definition of a commons: a resource arranged such that, unlike property all members of a relevant population have access to that property free from the will of others. Unlike the public domain, commons (1) have defined user populations, and (2) have set rules for use. However, our definition of the commons is inherently malleable, and will always reflect our desires for it.''

==Commons is a resource accessible to a ''relevant population''==
* definitions of the commons varies on how large the population who has access rights has to be
* commons is a resource to which a certain population has access and use rights (key difference from public domain)
* something is truly a commons only if the whole society has access rights to the resource
* implicit: commons can exist relative to a given population. What is commons for one group may not be commons for those outside the group

==Commons defined by ''restrictions on use''==
* Unlike resources in the public domain, resources in the commons may have restrictions attached to their use
* Not simply the opposite of property
* commons usually require a framework of norms or rules to operate
* commons are defined by certain restraints (another key difference from private property)

==Commons can ''exist upon'' private property'==
* intellectual property can be used to sustain private property
* Commons resources operate outside of market conditions
* commons can be built on a foundation of private property
* can create a commons using existing IP rights

==Common can ''interact with'', or ''increase the value of'', private property==
* commons property can interact with and increase the value of private property
* Until recently, intellectual property was taken to be the exception, not the rule

==Commons' norms can be ''self-sustaining''==
* Commons can allow people to take from a common pool. Sometimes require that the resulting product is fed back into the pool.

==Creating commons from existing property requires ''collective permission''==
* commons can be created from the collective permission of rights-holders

==Definition of the commons is ''inherently malleable''==
* Our definition of the public domain will evolve according to our hopes for it

==Freedom of the commons is ''freedom from the will of others''==
* Two different kinds of freedom: (1) freedom from the will of others, versus (2) freedom from a background of economic constraints. Boyle prefers (1)

==Commons can be simply ''standard practices''==
* Sometimes the commons might not be a resource but just a standard for communication

=Navigation=
Back to [[Defining the Commons]] 
Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

Benkler

2010-05-19T23:05:42Z

WikiSysop: /* Navigation */

{{TOCright}}
=Building a definition of the commons=

''Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource governed by a (more or less) defined population exerting symmetric control over its use through a series of (more or less) defined rules in order to provide free and predictable access for that population to that resource. ''

==Symmetric control==

* each member has symmetric control over how the resource is used
* no arbitrary system of permission
* rules, when instituted, are instituted equally among all users
* no member given privileged access
* no actor can legally act upon another by his or her will

==System of rules==
* commons can be distinguished from each other along two axes: closed/open, regulated/unregulated
* the regulations of the commons can be formal or norm-based
* calls on the common pool rarely measured very strictly
* constraints on commons resources may be social, legal, or regulatory

==Free (as in freedom) and predictable access==
* free for all, predictable for all (this comment is later contradicted. Seems he wants to say, rather that commons are priced equally for all members)
* guarantees certain degree of freedom and predictability of access to resources

==Open membership==
* only requirement seems to be that you need to want to participate in it
* there is a (more or less) well defined population that has a say over how the resource is going to be used
* motivations for contributions seem irrelevant
* commons often need common purpose

==Different in kind from markets==
* resources of commons often rival resources in market. Difference is freedom and predictability of access
* commons not necessarily the most efficient use of resources
* however, there are predictable conditions for when commons more efficient than markets
* more likely than other forms of production to identify the person best suited for the job
* better able than markets to allocate small quanta of resources
* possibility of commons regimes is dependent on technology

==Self-organizing, self-sustaining==
* clustering of attention / resource use within a commons provides structure and accreditation
* within information commons, so long as the information is easily share-able, a navigable order will likely appear
* for information commons to survive and thrive, might need substantial background knowledge
* commons often create a sense of common purpose
* commons often perceived as less secure than enclosed systems

==Consequences of the commons==
* within the sphere of public information, more expansive commons almost certainly improve human autonomy rather than undermine it

=Navigation=

Back to [[Defining the Commons]] 
Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

Benkler

2010-05-19T23:04:52Z

WikiSysop:

Defining the Commons

2010-05-19T23:02:11Z

WikiSysop: /* Navigation */

* [[Benkler]]
* [[Boyle]]
* [[Lessig]]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Industrial_Cooperation_Project]] 
Back to [[Main Page]]

Defining the Commons

2010-05-19T23:01:59Z

WikiSysop: /* Navigation */

* [[Benkler]]
* [[Boyle]]
* [[Lessig]]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Industrial_Cooperation_Project]]
Back to [[Main Page]]

Industrial Cooperation Project/ICP Questions

2010-05-19T23:01:30Z

WikiSysop:

{{TOCright}}
=Questions=
==Main questions==
*How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors?
*How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?
*How is the capital (funding, infrastructure, services) concentrated?

==Complementary questions==
*Who are the actors involved?
*Who are the actors leading the adoption of cooperation arrangements?
*Where in the value chain are cooperation arrangements being adopted?
*In early stages or very late stages, or related to positions on government policies toward market conditions such as best practices or standards?
*What are the cooperation arrangements that can be seen as cross-sector arrangements or practices? (like competitions, CCâ¦.some of them are standards efforts and others are incentive-shifting)
*What are the practices emerging from sustainable supply chain optimizations that can be seen as cooperation arrangements?
*What are the driving forces behind cooperation arrangements - funder mandates, institutional policy, experimentation, community credit?
*What is the weight of IP in these cooperation arrangements?
*Why some industries have made the leap while others have not?
*How would you rewire an industry that has not made the leap? What are the barriers?
*What are the tools for cooperation in use? Who is providing tools for cooperation and what are the types of clients looking for those?
*How replicable are these cooperation arrangements? What elements are common across different industries?
*How much awareness of cooperation arrangements can be identified in the research fields?
*How important are the traditional channels of cooperation or knowledge sharing such as conferences and public events? What new technological systems complement or replicate those channels (e.g. blogs replicating conference hallway conversation)?
*What typology can be built around these cooperation arrangements?
*What is the infrastructure cooperation arrangements need?
*What makes sector “A” work? Why they are not working in sector “B”?
*How much innovation is happening and in what environments? Ex.: informal sharing settings (ex.: climate change)

==Research Outline==

#Part 1. An introduction providing an overview of economics of Intellectual Property in the sector under analysis, with the objectives of:
#*1.1. provide a literature review of the IP debate in the sector. (Where and how IP is working or not, and what are the relevant topics around IP in this sector?)
#*1.2. identify what are the other innovation incentives mentioned.
#*1.3. find data on "how much of an increase of the tendency towards enclosure" characterizes the sector. (e.g. How much has patenting increased over time? Which actors cab be identified pushing this trend?)
#Part 2. Provide an overall picture of the sector:
#*2.1. How was this field born and how is it evolving?
#*2.2. What are the main business models?
#*2.3. What are the innovation dynamics in this field? (inputs/outputs, cycles of innovation/ disruptive or incremental innovation?)
#*2.4. How does knowledge flow in this field?
#*2.5. Is this field replicating models from other fields?
#*2.6. How many companies and how concentrated is the sector?
#*2.7. How much money do they make or how much money do they “move” in the American economy?
#*2.8. How important is research from universities in this specific field?
#*2.9. How important is public funding in this field?
#*2.10. How important is private funding / venture capital in this field?
#*2.11. Are there any specific public policies (from agencies, federal or state policies) that give incentives for openness or enclosure?
#*2.12. What is the cost structure of the field?
#*2.13. Who are the producers, the buyers, and the users?
#*2.14. What is the structure of power from the production side and what is the structure of power in the demand side? (E.g., who has the power to control production and demand? How is the control distributed? How is the relation among producers, adopters, buyers, and users? Do these relations bring any market dysfunctions?)
#Part 3. Define what kinds of market-segments are relevant and how the knowledge inputs for innovation in a certain sector are characterized. (e.g. In Biotechnology, we adopted the division of data, texts and tools as the main knowledge inputs and outputs in different moments of the biotechnology value chain)
#Part 4. Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) and the trends regarding their enforcement. Develop a matrix exercise on the trends and how they impact in openness or closedness of strategies.
#Part 5. Define the competitive advantages in the field and the barriers of entry, and how this may impact in the emergence of common-based models.
#Part 6. Identify the biggest for-profit companies in the sector (the sample should be of 10 firms maximum, based on their market share, their incumbent position and their importance in shaping the sector)
#*6.1. How is the market distributed?
#*6.2. Where are they located? Are there any incentives for specific locations?
#*6.3. Correlate them with their main outputs and market segments.
#*6.4. Correlate them with IP strategies.
#*6.5. Identify how (and if) they contribute to the commons and if this is a “experimentation” or a clear “adopting” commons-based approaches
#*6.6. Identify these cases and treat them as entities that will also be placed in our mapping device (the quadrants)
#*6.7. Try to understand which companies use IP to enclose knowledge or to open knowledge as parts of its innovations strategies
#Part 7. Identify the biggest non-for-profit institutions (public or private) in the sector (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 7, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 8. Identify the (5) top Universities in this field in terms of importance of R&D and innovation focused on the chosen sector. (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 8, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 9. Identify industry/universities/professional associations and civil society organizations that shape the IP discourse in the sector. Identify their policies, lobby, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
#Part 10. Identify commons-based cases or alternative open business models that emerged in the sector (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 10, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 11. Identify industry/universities/professional associations and civil society organizations that shape the IP discourse in the sector. Identify their policies, lobby, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
#Part 12. Identify and analyze private foundations that give grants in this field and how they shape the IP discourse.

==Other questions or sensitivities that might be taken into consideration==
*What are the possible antitrust issues related to this new cooperative arrangement?
*How do issues such as country security impact on cooperation arrangements?
*Are they seen as barriers? If yes, in what moment of the value chain?
*How does the culture (cooperative and national-legal culture) shape the potential for cooperation arrangements?

==Other Resources==
[[Lessons from ANT]] 
[[Defining_the_Commons]]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]
Back to [[Industrial_Cooperation_Project]]
Back to [[Alternative Energy]] 
Back to [[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]] 
Back to [[Diagnostic Kits]]
Back to [[Educational Materials]] 
Back to [[Telecommunications]]

Industrial Cooperation Project/ICP Questions

2010-05-19T23:00:16Z

WikiSysop: /* Other questions or sensitivities that might be taken into consideration */

{{TOCright}}
=Questions=
==Main questions==
*How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors?
*How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?
*How is the capital (funding, infrastructure, services) concentrated?

==Complementary questions==
*Who are the actors involved?
*Who are the actors leading the adoption of cooperation arrangements?
*Where in the value chain are cooperation arrangements being adopted?
*In early stages or very late stages, or related to positions on government policies toward market conditions such as best practices or standards?
*What are the cooperation arrangements that can be seen as cross-sector arrangements or practices? (like competitions, CCâ¦.some of them are standards efforts and others are incentive-shifting)
*What are the practices emerging from sustainable supply chain optimizations that can be seen as cooperation arrangements?
*What are the driving forces behind cooperation arrangements - funder mandates, institutional policy, experimentation, community credit?
*What is the weight of IP in these cooperation arrangements?
*Why some industries have made the leap while others have not?
*How would you rewire an industry that has not made the leap? What are the barriers?
*What are the tools for cooperation in use? Who is providing tools for cooperation and what are the types of clients looking for those?
*How replicable are these cooperation arrangements? What elements are common across different industries?
*How much awareness of cooperation arrangements can be identified in the research fields?
*How important are the traditional channels of cooperation or knowledge sharing such as conferences and public events? What new technological systems complement or replicate those channels (e.g. blogs replicating conference hallway conversation)?
*What typology can be built around these cooperation arrangements?
*What is the infrastructure cooperation arrangements need?
*What makes sector “A” work? Why they are not working in sector “B”?
*How much innovation is happening and in what environments? Ex.: informal sharing settings (ex.: climate change)

==Research Outline==

#Part 1. An introduction providing an overview of economics of Intellectual Property in the sector under analysis, with the objectives of:
#*1.1. provide a literature review of the IP debate in the sector. (Where and how IP is working or not, and what are the relevant topics around IP in this sector?)
#*1.2. identify what are the other innovation incentives mentioned.
#*1.3. find data on "how much of an increase of the tendency towards enclosure" characterizes the sector. (e.g. How much has patenting increased over time? Which actors cab be identified pushing this trend?)
#Part 2. Provide an overall picture of the sector:
#*2.1. How was this field born and how is it evolving?
#*2.2. What are the main business models?
#*2.3. What are the innovation dynamics in this field? (inputs/outputs, cycles of innovation/ disruptive or incremental innovation?)
#*2.4. How does knowledge flow in this field?
#*2.5. Is this field replicating models from other fields?
#*2.6. How many companies and how concentrated is the sector?
#*2.7. How much money do they make or how much money do they “move” in the American economy?
#*2.8. How important is research from universities in this specific field?
#*2.9. How important is public funding in this field?
#*2.10. How important is private funding / venture capital in this field?
#*2.11. Are there any specific public policies (from agencies, federal or state policies) that give incentives for openness or enclosure?
#*2.12. What is the cost structure of the field?
#*2.13. Who are the producers, the buyers, and the users?
#*2.14. What is the structure of power from the production side and what is the structure of power in the demand side? (E.g., who has the power to control production and demand? How is the control distributed? How is the relation among producers, adopters, buyers, and users? Do these relations bring any market dysfunctions?)
#Part 3. Define what kinds of market-segments are relevant and how the knowledge inputs for innovation in a certain sector are characterized. (e.g. In Biotechnology, we adopted the division of data, texts and tools as the main knowledge inputs and outputs in different moments of the biotechnology value chain)
#Part 4. Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) and the trends regarding their enforcement. Develop a matrix exercise on the trends and how they impact in openness or closedness of strategies.
#Part 5. Define the competitive advantages in the field and the barriers of entry, and how this may impact in the emergence of common-based models.
#Part 6. Identify the biggest for-profit companies in the sector (the sample should be of 10 firms maximum, based on their market share, their incumbent position and their importance in shaping the sector)
#*6.1. How is the market distributed?
#*6.2. Where are they located? Are there any incentives for specific locations?
#*6.3. Correlate them with their main outputs and market segments.
#*6.4. Correlate them with IP strategies.
#*6.5. Identify how (and if) they contribute to the commons and if this is a “experimentation” or a clear “adopting” commons-based approaches
#*6.6. Identify these cases and treat them as entities that will also be placed in our mapping device (the quadrants)
#*6.7. Try to understand which companies use IP to enclose knowledge or to open knowledge as parts of its innovations strategies
#Part 7. Identify the biggest non-for-profit institutions (public or private) in the sector (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 7, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 8. Identify the (5) top Universities in this field in terms of importance of R&D and innovation focused on the chosen sector. (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 8, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 9. Identify industry/universities/professional associations and civil society organizations that shape the IP discourse in the sector. Identify their policies, lobby, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
#Part 10. Identify commons-based cases or alternative open business models that emerged in the sector (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 10, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 11. Identify industry/universities/professional associations and civil society organizations that shape the IP discourse in the sector. Identify their policies, lobby, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
#Part 12. Identify and analyze private foundations that give grants in this field and how they shape the IP discourse.

==Other questions or sensitivities that might be taken into consideration==
*What are the possible antitrust issues related to this new cooperative arrangement?
*How do issues such as country security impact on cooperation arrangements?
*Are they seen as barriers? If yes, in what moment of the value chain?
*How does the culture (cooperative and national-legal culture) shape the potential for cooperation arrangements?

==Other Resources==
[[Lessons from ANT]] 
[Defining the Commons]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]
Back to [[Industrial_Cooperation_Project]]
Back to [[Alternative Energy]] 
Back to [[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]] 
Back to [[Diagnostic Kits]]
Back to [[Educational Materials]] 
Back to [[Telecommunications]]

Industrial Cooperation Project/ICP Questions

2010-05-19T22:59:49Z

WikiSysop: New page: {{TOCright}} =Questions= ==Main questions== *How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, a...

{{TOCright}}
=Questions=
==Main questions==
*How are components of the industrial structure of information production systems changing in different industries, different business models, and different sets of actors?
*How are they incorporating commons-based strategy?
*How is the capital (funding, infrastructure, services) concentrated?

==Complementary questions==
*Who are the actors involved?
*Who are the actors leading the adoption of cooperation arrangements?
*Where in the value chain are cooperation arrangements being adopted?
*In early stages or very late stages, or related to positions on government policies toward market conditions such as best practices or standards?
*What are the cooperation arrangements that can be seen as cross-sector arrangements or practices? (like competitions, CCâ¦.some of them are standards efforts and others are incentive-shifting)
*What are the practices emerging from sustainable supply chain optimizations that can be seen as cooperation arrangements?
*What are the driving forces behind cooperation arrangements - funder mandates, institutional policy, experimentation, community credit?
*What is the weight of IP in these cooperation arrangements?
*Why some industries have made the leap while others have not?
*How would you rewire an industry that has not made the leap? What are the barriers?
*What are the tools for cooperation in use? Who is providing tools for cooperation and what are the types of clients looking for those?
*How replicable are these cooperation arrangements? What elements are common across different industries?
*How much awareness of cooperation arrangements can be identified in the research fields?
*How important are the traditional channels of cooperation or knowledge sharing such as conferences and public events? What new technological systems complement or replicate those channels (e.g. blogs replicating conference hallway conversation)?
*What typology can be built around these cooperation arrangements?
*What is the infrastructure cooperation arrangements need?
*What makes sector “A” work? Why they are not working in sector “B”?
*How much innovation is happening and in what environments? Ex.: informal sharing settings (ex.: climate change)

==Research Outline==

#Part 1. An introduction providing an overview of economics of Intellectual Property in the sector under analysis, with the objectives of:
#*1.1. provide a literature review of the IP debate in the sector. (Where and how IP is working or not, and what are the relevant topics around IP in this sector?)
#*1.2. identify what are the other innovation incentives mentioned.
#*1.3. find data on "how much of an increase of the tendency towards enclosure" characterizes the sector. (e.g. How much has patenting increased over time? Which actors cab be identified pushing this trend?)
#Part 2. Provide an overall picture of the sector:
#*2.1. How was this field born and how is it evolving?
#*2.2. What are the main business models?
#*2.3. What are the innovation dynamics in this field? (inputs/outputs, cycles of innovation/ disruptive or incremental innovation?)
#*2.4. How does knowledge flow in this field?
#*2.5. Is this field replicating models from other fields?
#*2.6. How many companies and how concentrated is the sector?
#*2.7. How much money do they make or how much money do they “move” in the American economy?
#*2.8. How important is research from universities in this specific field?
#*2.9. How important is public funding in this field?
#*2.10. How important is private funding / venture capital in this field?
#*2.11. Are there any specific public policies (from agencies, federal or state policies) that give incentives for openness or enclosure?
#*2.12. What is the cost structure of the field?
#*2.13. Who are the producers, the buyers, and the users?
#*2.14. What is the structure of power from the production side and what is the structure of power in the demand side? (E.g., who has the power to control production and demand? How is the control distributed? How is the relation among producers, adopters, buyers, and users? Do these relations bring any market dysfunctions?)
#Part 3. Define what kinds of market-segments are relevant and how the knowledge inputs for innovation in a certain sector are characterized. (e.g. In Biotechnology, we adopted the division of data, texts and tools as the main knowledge inputs and outputs in different moments of the biotechnology value chain)
#Part 4. Define the main legal tools of protection (privatization) available for the field (patents, copyright, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, public domain) and the trends regarding their enforcement. Develop a matrix exercise on the trends and how they impact in openness or closedness of strategies.
#Part 5. Define the competitive advantages in the field and the barriers of entry, and how this may impact in the emergence of common-based models.
#Part 6. Identify the biggest for-profit companies in the sector (the sample should be of 10 firms maximum, based on their market share, their incumbent position and their importance in shaping the sector)
#*6.1. How is the market distributed?
#*6.2. Where are they located? Are there any incentives for specific locations?
#*6.3. Correlate them with their main outputs and market segments.
#*6.4. Correlate them with IP strategies.
#*6.5. Identify how (and if) they contribute to the commons and if this is a “experimentation” or a clear “adopting” commons-based approaches
#*6.6. Identify these cases and treat them as entities that will also be placed in our mapping device (the quadrants)
#*6.7. Try to understand which companies use IP to enclose knowledge or to open knowledge as parts of its innovations strategies
#Part 7. Identify the biggest non-for-profit institutions (public or private) in the sector (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 7, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 8. Identify the (5) top Universities in this field in terms of importance of R&D and innovation focused on the chosen sector. (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 8, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 9. Identify industry/universities/professional associations and civil society organizations that shape the IP discourse in the sector. Identify their policies, lobby, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
#Part 10. Identify commons-based cases or alternative open business models that emerged in the sector (Repeat analysis of item 6 for item 10, adapting when it is needed)
#Part 11. Identify industry/universities/professional associations and civil society organizations that shape the IP discourse in the sector. Identify their policies, lobby, recommendations and/or best practices related to IP of their members.
#Part 12. Identify and analyze private foundations that give grants in this field and how they shape the IP discourse.

==Other questions or sensitivities that might be taken into consideration==
**What are the possible antitrust issues related to this new cooperative arrangement?
**How do issues such as country security impact on cooperation arrangements?
**Are they seen as barriers? If yes, in what moment of the value chain?
**How does the culture (cooperative and national-legal culture) shape the potential for cooperation arrangements?

==Other Resources==
[[Lessons from ANT]] 
[Defining the Commons]

=Navigation=
Back to [[Main Page]]
Back to [[Industrial_Cooperation_Project]]
Back to [[Alternative Energy]] 
Back to [[Biotechnology - Genomic and Proteomics]] 
Back to [[Diagnostic Kits]]
Back to [[Educational Materials]] 
Back to [[Telecommunications]]