Open vs. 公开

bunnieblinkBL_NK Singapore, April 2013

gong kai

The Western IP “Social Bargain”

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Sharing of ideas to promote crowd

sourced innovation

Material reward for risk taking behavior via monopoly rights

A Technological Eternity

“Limited Times”:− Patent: 20-year =

8088 (introduced 1979, 5 MHz)Pentium III “Coppermine” (1999, 800 MHz)

− Copyright: 120 years (for corporations)

Motivations Change Monetary wealth is no longer the sole driver of innovation

− Public recognition

− Legacy

− Curiosity

− Altruism

Open source was thus bourne of closed-source law

Sharing of ideas to promote crowd

sourced innovation

Liability protection and public recognition

“Open” is not “Public Domain”

<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.

Remember: Open is borne of IP law that defaults to a closed system.

Open is Legally Intense

Open Software Everywhere

Open Hardware...where?

A Mismatch to Hardware? OSHW mailing list debate topics:

− Is sharing schematics in Orcad format (proprietary editor) “Open”?

− Is it open if manufacturing methods are not also released?

− Is it open if you incorporate closed components?

− Is it open if you don't disclose certain firmware components?

− “Layers of openness” – at what point do we stop?

“And in practice, documenting the full set of procedures to make any technological item is not just silly, but nearly impossible. (I only have a vague notion of how to extract copper, tin, and gold from ore. But I don't think that a given circuit board design is "closed" when the designers fail to include those procedures as part of their documentation.)” – Windell Oskay

Hardware, the OSI underdog:

− “Can you give an entity that actually is going to own patents a reason to sign this? That's the really hard part. I think to do that, you need to be providing something of value.” - to-remain-unnamed open source software “thought leader”

Does it have to be this way?

- 260 MHz 32-bit CPU, 8MiB RAM- Quad-band GSM- Bluetooth- OLED display- MP3 player- Li-Poly battery- $12 qty 1

- 16 MHz 8-bit CPU, 2.5k RAM- USB serial interface- Voltage regulator- $29 qty 1

Typical Open Hardware, as practiced by Hackers

Typical 公开 Hardware, as practiced by 山寨 (Shanzhai)

Docs for both are Accessible...

The Fruits of 公开

公开 doesn't “play by the rules”

Many documents are marked as “confidential” or lack copyright notices

Acquisition through sharing sites with “mutual exchange” rules (contribute-to-download)

Different Systems:公开 vs. Open

公开 isn't “open” in the legal sense However, from the standpoint of enabling

access it is similar− Enables innovators to 'rip-mix-burn' in hardware

Is 公开 the realpolitik of Open Source Hardware?

How does 公开 survive?

According to Western IP theory, the “basic bargain” is broken:

− Innovators & investors should have no motivation to take risk

− But, business is booming – and most of us have never even heard of these companies

Does 公开 Destroy Innovation? Child's phone:

− Call home in case of emergency

− No ability to send SMS or play games

Numerous attempts to design/launch this in the US

− US: Firefly Mobile raised $10mm in 2005, today still in venture stage

− China: This product is produced by a white-label factory in China, purchased for $20, probably < $50k invested

− Recall: Xiaomi Started in 2010, sales 1.8 million units, valuation $4 billion, 2012

Observation

Everyone is still profiting from this arrangement

− Mediatek, whose confidentiality agreements are so flagrantly violated, is the largest seller of chips in China

− Carriers sell more SIM cards

− App makers have more user terminals to target

− Contract manufacturers are employed to make devices

− Distribution & supply chain players largely unaffected

− Users have more choice, more competitive pricing, and more products to choose from

Parting Thought:Two Cultures, Two Methods

Western open is like one-to-many broadcasting:

− Compulsory licenses granted to the masses: either everyone can use it, or you must negotiate a license

− Rights to an idea persist “for an eternity”

China 公开 is like a network:

− Ideas are traded on a piecemeal basis

Equivalent exchange (idea-for-idea) or monetary exchange (buy an idea)

Rights to an idea exhaust at point of sale

Thanks!