Jimmy Breeze's Library tagged IPR → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

29 Nov 09

DRM versus innovation - Boing Boing

www.boingboing.net/...drm-versus-innovatio.html - Preview

innovation IPR technology

30 Oct 09

The OFF System — OFF System Introduction

offsystem.sourceforge.net - Preview

interesting participation opensource information IPR

14 Aug 09

Dean Kamen Quotes About Health Care Debate - Interview With Inventor Dean Kamen - Popular Mechanics

health services policy innovation IPR

14 Jul 09

McKinsey: What Matters: Prizes: a winning strategy for innovation

whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/...inning-strategy-for-innovation - Preview

IPR collaboration innovation design

As the patent and grant system matured, however, prizes seemed to become peripheral to innovation. Today, they are booming again. Since 2000, more than 60 prizes with a value greater than $100,000 have debuted around the world, representing almost $250 million in new prize money, and the total annual value of the large prizes that we tracked has more than tripled.
This renaissance is driven by the simple fact that prizes work—almost by definition, since they pay only for desired results, not noble failures.
9 more annotations...
- Recognition prizes seek to identify excellence—for instance, by recognizing specific individuals or innovations.
- Inducement prizes, on the other hand, aim to spur specific innovations by focusing the energy of potential problem solvers on well-defined problems.
- The first are exposition prizes, to which the Internet gives new potential. These prizes use a competition to highlight ideas or opportunities within a field.
- The Netherlands’ PICNIC Green Challenge, for example, is an exhibition that highlights green products and services and enlists other organizations to help improve and scale the best ideas. Last year, the prize attracted over 200 entrants.
- Network prizes build and strengthen communities by connecting funders and innovators, creating forums for interaction, and encouraging potential leaders.
- Just competing for a prize can improve the skills or behavior of entrants, so a few sponsors have made participation a primary objective, designing prizes for which the competitive process is at least as important as the outcome. The annual FIRST Robotics Competition, for example, puts tens of thousands of American high school students through a variety of robot building challenges, rewarding team spirit and professionalism as much as finished products. The focus on reinforcing motivation and building team skills is partly responsible for the fact that participants are three times more likely than peers from similar backgrounds to major in engineering—and twice as likely to perform community service. We found participation prizes to be one of the least-used prize types, but there are enough good examples of successful ones to suggest that they should be used more often as a broader social-change strategy.
- Ashoka’s Changemakers competitions solicit input from hundreds of Ashoka fellows and past entrants to create a detailed “discovery framework” that defines the problems to be solved. In both cases, a generous investment of time and resources improves the odds that later investments, by the sponsors and the participants alike, will pay off in social benefits.
- A great deal of research suggests that collaboration can promote innovation substantially and some prizes actively encourage it. Changemakers, for example, encourages publication of submissions during the competition, generating conversations that often inspire participants to improve their entries before the competion closes.
- We see a bright future for prizes. Nearly a third of the sponsors we surveyed plan to increase their prize activity. The new generation of philanthropists are embracing prizes, and the entry of new kinds of sponsors, such as governments, may further expand the resources available. Prizes are also likely to become more professional, as the emergence of full-time facilitators such as Innocentive and the X-PRIZE Foundation shows. Greater attention to best practices will make prizes more economically productive. And we expect to see a greater understanding of—and better solutions to—tricky challenges, such as the protection of intellectual property and the proliferation of prizes.

17 Jun 09

BBC NEWS | Technology | Japan's ambitious digital future

news.bbc.co.uk/...8102854.stm - Preview

technology Japan future society internet knowledge IPR

"Since high bandwidth at low prices is the life blood of an IT society - that is precisely the structural advantage Japan has,"
Tokyo hopes to double by 2010 the number of telecommuters, estimated at about 6.74 million in 2005, or about 20% of the working population, who will take advantage of super fast and cheap broadband connections.

31 Mar 09

RiP: A Remix Manifesto

www3.nfb.ca/...rip-a-remix-manifesto - Preview

IPR culture video

29 Mar 09

IP on The Global Net

homes.eff.org/...EconomyOfIdeas.html - Preview

IPR information

04 Mar 09

Why iTunes is not a workable model for the newspaper business « Clay Shirky

www.shirky.com/...le-model-for-the-news-business - Preview

IPR journalism media newmedia

Why iTunes is not a workable model for the newspaper business
The first characteristic concerns music itself: people like to hear the same song more than once.
8 more annotations...
- but there are not many newspaper articles you’d read twice.
- if I let you read something I write, and then try to charge you for it, I will fail, even if you liked it, because you don’t want to read it again. If I let you listen to a song I recorded, and then try to charge you for it, I may succeed, especially if you liked it, because you do want to listen to it again.
- desire to hear the same song more than once helps keep music from being interchangeable, or fungible, as Nick Carr points out.
- Most forms of superdistribution have been rendered illegal
- With these two models rendered illegal, the labels have been able to insist on fee-per-song fees free of competition from alternatives.
- Third, most popular music, and especially the back catalog, is owned by just four companies — Sony, EMI, Universal, and Warner. Like the major airlines, the business models and pricing of these companies move in synch. (This is not the same as formal collusion; with so few firms and their interests so similar, they can align their interests without acting in concert.) Because the music they control is not fungible, because they prefer to charge direct user fees, and because the alternative models have been limited or forbidden by legal or regulatory means, they have significant control of the music market as a whole.
- Mainstream music is tied to fee-per-track. iTunes Music Store competes with other fee-per-track services like Amazon, but faces little significant competition from other kinds of services.
- Whether you like or loathe the major music labels, they are in a situation where they can sharply restrict distribution models they don’t like. Whatever you think of that in normative terms, it doesn’t describe any strategy available to newspapers, because the main source of value for newspapers is reporting on events in the real world, and since those events can’t be copyrighted, news online will always be a competitive business in a way music is not.

02 Mar 09

Innovation Policies for the 21st Century

To get the most from these centers, and to encourage new ones to emerge, universities and companies more than ever today require the right mix of government policies. The forthcoming edition of Science Progress and this website will include suggestions of how to get this right, including a tax system and regulatory structure that encourages risk taking and rewards R&D activity; a National Innovation Fund that allocates resources where they are needed; metrics by which to ensure the right local infrastructure is in place; and lessons from other governments that value service sector innovation as well as more traditional scientific R&D.

www.americanprogress.org/...innovation_policies.html - Preview

innovation IPR

25 Feb 09