Compopoly - a fairer reward system for value creators?

As someone who has tried a number of 'old school' (IP) based ways to commercialise innovations (setting up a manufacturing company, licencing to big manufacturers) and who is on the verge of trying the open source/crowd source approach, I believe that there is a better alternative - a 'compopoly'.

If consumers rather than 'distributors' (retailers, marketeers and lawyers) decided what reward value 'producers' (innovators, staff, asset owners and investors) in the supply chain got, then:

1. Creators would get a fairer share of financial rewards and recognition for delivering value adding innovation.
2. This would incentivise more incremental innovation.
3. More people would focus on creative and productive activities rather than distributive ones.
4. The open source benefits of minimising wasteful re-learning of lessons would be minimised leading to the adoption of best practice solutions.
5. Intense competition would be focused at the cutting edge.
6. Publishing of the solution would secure the share of revenue that consumers decided to award for the added value.
7. Details of all innovations would be made widely available and put to good use - rather than being hidden away in an obscure corner of the patents database - thus minimising duplication.

So how do we make this happen?

Ideally, we consumers would need to make market information - their everyday needs, wants and importantly problems available FREE to as large an audience as possible. The existing main online channels - Google, Amazon and EBay - already empower suppliers large and small to reach the market, but charge for the privilege in different ways. If they - or another group of forward thinking consumers - came together to provide a platform where people could list their needs, allow everyone to bid to fulfil them, collect payment and distribute the proceeds to those involved in the creation and distribution of the product or service, we would have a fairer, more productive environment where less of our collective potential was wasted.

I would love to hear what you - as a community of forward thinking creators, entrepreneurs and observers - think of this idea.

Sounds like a great idea! But I think it is already in place. There are several sites like [www.bountysource.com] coordinating bounties for Open Source projects, and some of the larger OS projects run their own bounty programs.

It seems these sites are mostly related to software, but I think in principle it might work for Open Source hardware as well.

I think that crowdfunding sites can also be used to raise funds for Open Source design work, crowdfunded projects do not necessarily have to produce a tangible reward.

Bobc,

Thanks for bringing the bounty sites to my attention - they certainly seem to make open source a bit more attractive.

If local making, growing and manufacturing based around 3d printing are to flourish - and we were to see a step change in our rate of technological progress - my thoughts were that a platform should make mass - as opposed to individual demand - available to those with ideas on how it could be more effectively met. The big retailers already have some of this information as a result of their loyalty cards which makes it harder for innovators to compete or even collaborate with them.

If say, we knew that 10 billion people spent £50 on new pairs of jeans, because just the knees wore out, then the world's creative community could come up with solutions to the problem. By posting up photographs of solutions on the same page as the need, then both the consumers and designers could see which was the most popular from the published sales figures. Rather than coming up with 500 different solutions, makers could offer enhancements to the best selling designs. Consumers could decide to opt for these enhancements or not - and all of the contributors would get rewarded accordingly eg. £2 to the innovator + £5 to a local maker willing to print or make the product locally + £2 for raw materials.

Similarly, but on a more basic level, if a local grower knew that 100 people living in 5 streets nearly all spent £2 on carrots per week, then he would have the critical volume required to compete with the big retailers.

The more I think about developer funding the more I think this should be just promoted more. Don't wait until you have something to sell, fundraise for developing good ideas and lay the result down as (partial) designs, wiki page, whatever. Also, add bounties for features needed.

Want true Bezier curves in a RepRap firmware? Open a bounty, send a few dollars, pitch it, and you'll eventually get it. Want an affordable electronics for filament extruders? Open a bounty, tell your friends, get the sources or even a fully working piece of hardware. Want a bug fixed ... open a bounty, ... . This strategy has also good chances to end this never ending discussion about -NC licences, because they'd become obsolete.

Here's an interesting one: [www.bountysource.com] It's not about hardware, but it shows a number of things:

- People don't feel alienated when somebody asks for $12.000 for a single month of work.

- You can pick up a project again after it didn't complete the first round.

- See the Lessons Learned From KickStarter section there.

- It apparently works for companies, too, Mozilla and Adobe pledged there.

I'd love to see such stuff everywhere in the RepRap wiki, on each page describing a hardware or software.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
I'd love to see such stuff everywhere in the RepRap wiki, on each page describing a hardware or software.

This is a neat idea, but how exactly would this work for hardware? Would a page have a list of items that need working on, and someone (the holder of a paypal account?) would keep track of how much money was pledged, and send funds off to people that did the work?

It seems like the RepRap wiki doesn't have all the machinery in place to keep track of the money. Could that machinery be added? Could the wiki partner with a site like bountysource that can manage the money flow?

I guess if bountysource (or wherever) was OK with hardware projects, the simplest thing would be just to link to the bountysource page from the wiki page...

Quote

This is a neat idea, but how exactly would this work for hardware?

The same way it works for software. Also because you'd get a design, which is software (models, drawings, etc.), not the hardware it's self. Selling hardware is in the hands of shops, then.

Quote

Would a page have a list of items that need working on, and someone (the holder of a paypal account?) would keep track of how much money was pledged, and send funds off to people that did the work?

That's the idea.

Quote

It seems like the RepRap wiki doesn't have all the machinery in place to keep track of the money. Could that machinery be added? Could the wiki partner with a site like bountysource that can manage the money flow?

I guess if bountysource (or wherever) was OK with hardware projects, the simplest thing would be just to link to the bountysource page from the wiki page...

In this order: No; yes; there is no wiki partner, it's our wiki; yes.

I'll see wether I can come up with an example. An electronics for filament extruders (Lyman & Co.) appears to be a good idea. We have no such thing, yet, and collecting for a DIY-able design is likely worth some money. Do you see other topics where some funding could enhance RepRap? I guess funding is typically required for the boring, tedious jobs.

BTW., Bountysource also funds its self, their web site software is open source: [www.bountysource.com]

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I just wrote this to the Bountysource support email address:

Quote

Hello Bountysource,

before I start making a Ph.D. thesis about Bountysource I think it's better I ask a few questions.

I'm one of the maintainers of reprap.org, the central piece of RepRap, and also a developer there. Perhaps you know it already, RepRap is the 3D printer movement which made 3D printing very affordable and DIY-able.

In recent discussions we found there's a gap between everything being free, i.e. developers add their work without any refund, and many upcoming shops which take this work and make substantial profit with it. The ability to make profit by just making copies of existing work is one of the key differences between open source and open hardware.

Many developers solve this problem by opening their own shop and by selling their developments there, but not every talented developer is also a talented salesman. And pure shops also have an advantage as they don't spend (waste?) time advancing the technology. Extrapolating the current development, this might lead to either a technological standstill or to all developers going into their own shop.

One of the solutions we came up with is to promote licences with a non-commercial clause. The other possible solution is why I write here.

Developers being paid for their work directly, instead of by making and selling their own design, would make RepRap a lot more attractive to developers. And doing so by offering bounties seems a very promising way to get there. The discussion leading to this plan is here:

http:/ /forums.reprap.org... (address of this thread)

The question now is, how would we integrate Bountysource into our wiki (http://reprap.org/)? I'd like to see an "open bounty" button on about every project page. I'd like to list existing bounties for a project on the projects' wiki page. I'd like to have RepRap related fundraisers described in our wiki. Because I pretty strongly believe people searching for RepRap related solutions don't look at the bountysource.com page, but at the RepRap wiki.

Can you help us?


Thanks,
Markus "Traumflug" Hitter

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

One way to get this started whilst waiting for bounty source to get involved would be to try and get some quantification of what people would like a 3D printer to do - and I don't just mean people on the RepRap wiki and forums.

I know that there are workgroups on the wiki working on printing metals, food, conductive layers, bio matter etc. as well as resolving print quality and other issues, but IMHO, they and the pinnacle of their work isn't as visible as could be.

If there was a way to create a wish list that could then end up as one or more '3D printer functionality' projects on Bountysource, Indiegogo or Kickstarter, then people who wanted that really wanted that feature could help to fund it's development. Meanwhile, all of the RepRap enthusiasts on here could pitch in with what they knew and how they could help...

Quote
Senake
Ideally, we consumers would need to make market information - their everyday needs, wants and importantly problems available FREE to as large an audience as possible.

"Market information" is not free and lots of people make it their career to produce and collate this information. There are whole fields of research devoted to figuring out what people need. Even huge companies like Microsoft cannot get this right. How can you say it is so easy?

Most "garage makers" don't have the time or the desire to sort through market information to figure out what needs to be made. Do you think an inventor will sit down in front of a huge list of someone else's ideas and scroll through them until he finds one he likes?

Quote
Senake
a platform where people could list their needs, allow everyone to bid to fulfil them, collect payment and distribute the proceeds to those involved in the creation and distribution of the product or service we would have a fairer, more productive environment where less of our collective potential was wasted.

The idea of a bidding system is a good one. The only way this can work is if the person with the need has to put some kind of deposit in along with his submission of a need to the database. That way you self-sort to have mostly real needs. How will the inventor approach the need? Will he have to give a proposal for his solution? Won't that mean he has given away his idea for free? If not, won't this open the door for scams and false advertising, the very thing you are trying to avoid?

It still seems to me the kickstarter model of "product looking for a buyer" is a better solution because it is the inventors who have way more ideas than people think they have needs.

The kickstarter model is quite suspicious to scams and false advertising, too. Some developers nickname it -pardon- "Shitstarter" already.

That said, having a bidding system and/or from-scratch fundraisers isn't exclusive. You can have both. Probably we actually need both, because we need to refine existing concepts just as much as opportunities for new ideas.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

destroyer2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most "garage makers" don't have the time or the
> desire to sort through market information to
> figure out what needs to be made. Do you think an
> inventor will sit down in front of a huge list of
> someone else's ideas and scroll through them until
> he finds one he likes?

Sure why not? Not everyone thinks the same way you do...

> The idea of a bidding system is a good one. The
> only way this can work is if the person with the
> need has to put some kind of deposit in along with
> his submission of a need to the database. That way
> you self-sort to have mostly real needs. How will
> the inventor approach the need? Will he have to
> give a proposal for his solution? Won't that mean
> he has given away his idea for free?

I think a very important point here is that bountysource et al are for Open Source projects, which currently lack an organised way to get funding to contributors.

If you just want to hire someone for a closed IP, there are plenty of ways to do that already, e.g. rentacoder.com

> It still seems to me the kickstarter model of
> "product looking for a buyer" is a better solution
> because it is the inventors who have way more
> ideas than people think they have needs.

It is certainly a traditional way, but I think we should try the other way as well, they aren't exclusive.

I think while most users are used to being passive consumers, I think there is a pool of people willing to help out Open Source projects with funding even if they don't have engineering skills to contribute. I especially think some people will be more willing to fund projects if they know that the results will be go into the public domain, rather than add to the giant cash mountains accrued by the likes of Microsoft and Apple.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2013 07:18PM by bobc.

Quote
destroyer2012
"Market information" is not free and lots of people make it their career to produce and collate this information. There are whole fields of research devoted to figuring out what people need. Even huge companies like Microsoft cannot get this right. How can you say it is so easy?

Most "garage makers" don't have the time or the desire to sort through market information to figure out what needs to be made. Do you think an inventor will sit down in front of a huge list of someone else's ideas and scroll through them until he finds one he likes?

Market information is currently not free - and that is one of the main reasons that the pace of innovation is slowed down.

There are two main reasons for this are that:

(1) Whilst "garage makers" and most small innovators do wish to get their ideas to market, most understandably won't risk the £1000's on marketing spend to access a sizeable enough audience to achieve the economies of scale to compete with established, inferior offerings from established suppliers and retailers.

(2) Mainstream investor interests are misaligned with innovation in general. It costs a lot of money to set up production lines, tooling, supply chains and distribution channels. Innovative products and services can make some or all of this infrastructure obsolete.

3D printing currently threatens to solve these problems in a very disruptive way. I believe that this transition can be achieved more quickly by aligning the solution to many more people's interests and positioning local manufacturing at the centre of their lives.

I am suggesting that consumers list their needs as opposed to makers listing their ideas.

If all of us - in our capacity as consumers - listed (1) the things we bought every week (2) the things we bought less frequently or would buy if the price/offering was right and (3) problems we wanted solved, put down a deposit to prove their intent and made this information available free of charge, then consumers could vote with their wallets to indicate if they thought a product enhancement was worth having or not. Just as importantly, individuals and businesses would have access to volume markets without risky marketing spend so many more good ideas would see the light of day. Furthermore, if there were one best of breed product per requirement, then investors and consumers would face much less risk when deciding where to put their money.

Right now on the 3d printer forums, we're concerned with obtaining better hot ends, extruders, electronics and mechanical components, but 3D printing is much bigger than that. If we are to produce a "star trek replicator" that prints out everything from aquaponic ingredient based cooked meals to graphene and PLA based smartphones, I believe that it would make sense to find out what the wider public want printed out.

The other big issue - ensuring that those involved with sales and marketing have an even more productive role - post free market information is something that we all need to ponder upon...I do have some ideas as to how this may be achieved.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2013 05:06PM by Senake.

There's also this Henry Ford citation:

Quote

If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse".

This isn't to be taken too directly, but it reminds of the lack of imagination and the lack of a measure on what is realistic.

A typical example is the request for some encoder to check wether a stepper motor actually moves the distance it should. It's pointless to develop something like that, because it just countermeasures an underlying problem. Fixing the actual problem (lack of current, too high acceleration, whatever) would give much better results. Still this request comes up again and again.

Also, if people would vote for a Star Trek replicator, they can get it ... somewhere after the year 2135.

That's why I consider letting people give a vote too freely can't really work. They need something to choose from, to get an idea what makes technical sense, what's realistic, and what not.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

On the other hand, there are many examples of products that made it to market that pretty useless or unworkable, so not all inventors are so smart either. Yes, I am thinking of Sinclair C5. Plus many ideas never get off the drawing board in the first place, I think only a small percent are successful. I've worked on a few cancelled projects myself.

Lots of money is spent on customer surveys and focus groups, so clearly it is recognised that customers have something valuable to say about what they want. However I think where we might agree is that customers may not be good at expressing the "how" and it needs a little interpretation. So if people say they want an encoder, what they might really want is just a bullet proof way of configuring so they don't lose steps. That could be done, I am thinking of setting a bounty for it.

Still if 1% of inventors' ideas are successful in the market, then if only 1% of customers product ideas are practical it is no worse. Inventors and customers ideas will both go through a selection process, but the process for each is different.

My experience is that users tend not to be proactive about explaining what they want, reporting bugs etc, but maybe part of that is that they just haven't been given a platform to do it. Unfortunately, developer mailing lists are often quite unwelcoming if not outright intolerant towards naive users.

I would like to give it a try anyway.

At a minimum a voting system that can track a number of different situations would be needed so community participation is in place, there may exist similar systems that could be modified. The following is a bit long but a fun read.

Types of ideas
I believe that there are three basic types of intellectual property that need to be addresses in the open source space and there cannot be a one size fits all solution.

First is the public domain disclosure where simple and unwanted ideas are published in an open forum to prevent them being locked by patents and to incrementally improve on the state of the art and to confer some bragging rights to the first mentioner, no money would be involved. There are lots of these but if they are confused with the others sometimes they remain unspoken because there is no reward from the other ideas so all ideas are dear children, these ideas can be the spark of something greater when enough of them are brought to one place giving rise to ....

Secondly there is the revolutionary idea (innovation) which is just a thought but on it's own is of no value to others or to to the creator. These ideas have a certain artistic feel to them. They may be simple or complex and can result in a new fundamental industry or increase the efficiency in an existing one. They should be credited to the creator and there should be a way that he can get financial reward for disclosing it rather than hoarding it. These should be made available to everyone, including community competition. These have no easy current mechanism in the maker community for compensation to innovators. These should have mostly a once off value (this can grow as the value is better realised or implemented), the same person may come up with an implementation which brings us to ...

Thirdly there is a the design of something, such as CAD and solid model files and other 'soft' property that can be manufactured with minor effort (format, material and method changes) by anyone with suitable infrastructure. These are not compensated in the maker communiti at the momment unless one starts to personally manufacture and this is not an ideal situation for a designer as this is not his/her core skill. However without the NC (should be LC for licenced commercial if one wants a positive and understandable name for it) limitation in an open design the designer is usually left with nothing. This type of disclosure is in desperate need of some kind of compensation to prevent the brain drain from the maker (RepRap) community.

The limitations of the status quo
If open hardware is to be a disruptive influence for the good it must be able to keep the skills inside the community instead of just creating lots of small operators that are forced to close their designs to survive.

I (and many others, some have also admitted it) have many ideas of the revolutionary or design type that have not been disclosed because they barely rate honourable mention once they are in the open. In time they usually they come out anyway but that is no compensation for throwing pearls before pigs. I and most others will be happy to accept whatever value our ideas have if they are disclosed if there was a system where we would receive the value of them.

The way forward
Now the only way I can see this working is if there is centralised control. No need to shout, it should not be big like Kickstarter of your local patent office but it needs to be controlled like Linux foundation, Arduino or I2C. However if it is controlled by a well meaning non-profit that has OPEN BOOKKEEPING there is huge benefits to be realised.

The way it needs to be done is that there is a central control of the intellectual property. If it is for (say) the RepRap project then some group manages it. They are incorporated somewhere and do the work. They collect funds using any acceptable methods (as decided by community voting with founder, funder and skills as qualifications in the franchise) such as bounty, crowd funding, advertising, licensing and whatever else. It needs a formal budget that may have some sources that dictate where the funds are spent. They then collect ideas that are entrusted to them while the innovator allows. They then licence designs to any manufactures that want to be affiliated at an estimated/negotiated/voted cost of parts sold (1-20% say) that the manufacturers are enthusiastic to pay in exchange for marketing benefits and community loyalty (logo). The community has the right to vote (with their contributions of posts, edits, marketing, ideas, money) on what the value is in which ideas, innovations and designs. They would also decide how the system works and in effect vote in the new 'government' who will levy taxes and pay taxes exactly as the people want. They must also be the police or pay the patent office and lawyers to do it for them, a instant black listing of non supporting of manufacturers by 100 thousand community members will prevent abuse of designs. Smoothing algorithms would be in place to prevent spikes and abuse and the constitution (first thing that needs to be paid for and voted on) would dictate what the goals are. A legal department would follow patent status and perhaps licence patents to compliant manufacturers allowing licensed use of various patents that will not get into the hands of big commercial competitors might let the RepRap community gain access to market and profit from these ideas too. All this requires a large and active community in all the social media arenas and formal marketing where affordable but could be the start of something much bigger with informed governing. Those who do not want the money could automatically donate it back into the pool to let those who do want innovate for money receive a slightly larger share.

After word
As a final note, remember that RepRap is not about cheap 3D printers, this cannot be done with open source, the low labour costs and high volumes of production will focus it to the East before long. It is about freedom when taking responsibility and acceleration in innovation which cannot work without continuity. Currently all open hardware is a bit like kids in a sand pit trading sand castles and designs, when they leave the new kids arriving have little real foundation work left behind and have to start again. Now the organisation can be the cement that binds the sand together and keeps the older kids behind to help the new kids pay with their creations.

RepRap was the catalyst for community sponsored innovation that might save the world, thank you Adrian, it is not the end result; it's just a 3D printer after all. As it stands now the innovation is automatically stifled because it is not rewarded. If it can be made to work with RepRap (and I do believe it can) it could be incrementally expanded to innovate in many other fields where individuals (or groups) can publish in exchange for money.

(see also this allied thread that touches on similar topics [forums.reprap.org] )

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2013 03:30AM by KalleP.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kickstarter model ...
> "Shitstarter"

kickstarter scampaign

My problem is that KS, while being a nice idea, is exploited. People who are not willing to put up their own money to fund their project and make it a business, instead get everyone else to fund it. I'd be in favor of some kind of fund-matching. If you're so convinced that your project will be successful, then have some accountability and let some of your own funds take a fall if your end result is a failure.

I have no idea if this could even be implemented, but I don't like the idea of throwing money at people who have almost no responsibility once the campaign is over.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2013 03:58PM by iquizzle.

Tramflug & iquizzle,

For the sake of clarity, I wanted to point out that I am not advocating crowd funding for innovator controlled developments. I am advocating crowd vetting and development of worthy innovators ideas by an interested expert community (eg. RepRap for 3D printers). In most cases, this would be evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.

Where an idea was deemed to be unworkable for technical or commercial reasons by the community, it wouldn't be offered on the RepRap eCommerce platform.

Quote
Senake
Market information is currently not free - and that is one of the main reasons that the pace of innovation is slowed down.

My point is you need to exert effort to get this information. Your idea is like saying, let's just all fly! It's a great idea but cannot work. You need some device to make you fly, just as you need someone to work hard to get this "market information".

Quote
KalleP
As a final note, remember that RepRap is not about cheap 3D printers

Yes that is correct. Reprap is about REPLICATING 3D printers. They should not be just "cheap" they should be completely independent from suppliers. That is the goal. Once the printer can fully replicate "closed source hardware" printers become instantly irrelevant.

Quote
Traumflug
The kickstarter model is quite suspicious to scams and false advertising, too. Some developers nickname it -pardon- "Shitstarter" already.

Do not forget that people willingly give up their money on this website for things which do not yet exist. Yes there are scams but it's up to the users of kickstarter to see through their scams. That's the whole point, you give the power of funding to the people, but along with this there comes responsibility (thanks, Spiderman).

One problem is there is no way to get your money back once a project is funded; only if the project owners are nice enough to give it back. Just like a real publisher the backers should be able to withdraw their funds if they see a project is not progressing. Or maybe the funding should be outlined in installments, and we would have the option to vote down the installments. Thus, the developers would have to keep a majority of backers happy to continue having their money.

Quote
KalleP
I and most others will be happy to accept whatever value our ideas have if they are disclosed if there was a system where we would receive the value of them.

I think this is a huge issue. How can one judge the value of an idea before anything has come of it? You might be dead by the time people realize it was a good idea.

Quote
KalleP
Those who do not want the money could automatically donate it back into the pool to let those who do want innovate for money receive a slightly larger share.

But how do you define "innovate"? Who will be in charge of making sure they are innovating and not wasting the money? Why should anyone who does not want the money be relied on to make decisions? They have no incentive to make good decisions.

What everyone is suggesting is basically democratizing research. This is a good idea, however, there's a reason why scientific research works the way it does. The reason is reputation.

Each scientist wants to get more funding to do more research, which is an incentive to produce fake data and use marketing. However, each scientist fears the loss of their good reputation, which will happen as soon as any inkling of falsified data is traced back to their lab. This fear of reputation is what keeps scientists (for the most part) honest. On the internet there is no such fear, because you can just make a new forum account or corporation or what ever as soon as your reputation takes a dive. This is because people on the internet want to retain their privacy, so we allow anyone to make any number of accounts, etc.

People need to give up their privacy if they want to really participate in these projects. Every scientist has their CV posted online where everyone can see. You can search their name in Pubmed and find all the work she or he has ever done. This is not something that most people will want to do, and as a result, you cannot have good participators in your open source projects. Only people who pretend to be good, then turn around and found their own closed source companies (Makerbot?).

Quote
destroyer2012

Quote
senake
Senake
Market information is currently not free - and that is one of the main reasons that the pace of innovation is slowed down.

My point is you need to exert effort to get this information. Your idea is like saying, let's just all fly! It's a great idea but cannot work. You need some device to make you fly, just as you need someone to work hard to get this "market information".

I am not saying that there is no time and cost associated with this activity - I am saying that this can be reduced and end loaded onto the cost of purchases so that more suppliers - especially smaller ones who may have cost reducing, quality improving or self sufficiency enabling solutions to get to market.

Families currently go shopping for food maybe 4 times per week and spend typically 1 hour each time - that adds up to around 11 wasted days per six month period. Suppose that instead, they used a community funded web site and representative network, to list their regular weekly, monthly and yearly planned purchases. Products could be delivered en masse to local pick up locations - existing shops, schools and even representatives converted garages. One person costing say £80,000 (£40,000 salary + £40,000 overheads and tax) could manage 5 streets or 1,000 homes. This would cost each household £40 every 6 months.

Quote
destroyer2012
How do you define innovate?

If the solution gained critical mass and became the place to buy best practice solutions at the best prices, then it would be easy for consumers to decide for themselves if a proof of concept tested product or service enhancement was worth the additional cost proposed to them. Just like specifying options when buying a car, the consumer could either take it or leave it. If there was enough interest, experts from the community could join it to deliver the enhancement or new product.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2013 05:15AM by Senake.

Quote

Do not forget that people willingly give up their money on this website for things which do not yet exist. Yes there are scams but it's up to the users of kickstarter to see through their scams.

Yes. At the same time these people have no knowledge (it's new, after all) to do careful decisions, so their responsibility is not executable. I wish KS all the best, but can also well imagine to see them going down the hill in a year or two because people were burned too often.

There's quite a gap between this "give up the money", which KS also supports, and the actual appearance of their site. The site looks much more like a preorder-shop and people act accordingly. If KS were about funding development, backing would stop after reaching the goal, because there's no point in paying $20.000 for something which costs only $8.000.

Quote
Senake

Quote
destroyer2012
How do you define innovate?

If the solution gained critical mass

A new idea is always born with zero (critical) mass. Orientation on the critical mass quickly leads to technological standstill, see e.g. RAMPS electronics.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

P.S.: I just see this [www.indiegogo.com] , a IndieGoGo campaign for a robotic/prosthetic hand. Half down the page they have a pie-chart with their plan to spend the funded money. Fees and pledge fulfillment ( = selling) is less than a third of the funding goal. This looks like real research and development.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

destroyer2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
KalleP
> As a final note, remember that RepRap is not about
> cheap 3D printers
>

>
> Yes that is correct. Reprap is about REPLICATING
> 3D printers. They should not be just "cheap" they
> should be completely independent from suppliers.
> That is the goal. Once the printer can fully
> replicate "closed source hardware" printers become
> instantly irrelevant.


The RepRap will not put other 3D printers out of business. It will just leave the high quality niches open to them that a RepRap does not need to fill. The prices will drop on units that do not exceed RepRap quality.

destroyer2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
KalleP
> I and most others will be happy to accept
> whatever value our ideas have if they are
> disclosed if there was a system where we would
> receive the value of them.
>

>
> I think this is a huge issue. How can one judge
> the value of an idea before anything has come of
> it? You might be dead by the time people realize
> it was a good idea.

The Community must do the deciding on what the value of the ideas is. This is why an integrated voting platform is the first bit of important open source software that needs developing.

With the LRC licence there is no need to be greedy if the community will vote you a meanigfull portion of the foundations revenue. If say you edit one wiki page you would be due 0.00001 shares of the idea revenue. If you invent a linear axis that can be printed you would get 1000 shares. If you publish the designs for the most compact new version of printer you might be valued at 100 shares for the idea and 1000 shares of the licensing revenue. As new ideas come they would slowly dilute your share with time unless the community votes to up your number of shares to maintain or increase your percentage of whatever pie ois available. This way people could up vote ideas and designs and they would get a larger portion of the whole. Adrian Bowyer would get a big chunk of the ideas shares but over time they would be a smaller percentage or he could donate back all his shares or the cash value wherever he wanted to.

destroyer2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
KalleP
> Those who do not want the money could
> automatically donate it back into the pool to let
> those who do want innovate for money receive a
> slightly larger share.
>

>
> But how do you define "innovate"? Who will be in
> charge of making sure they are innovating and not
> wasting the money? Why should anyone who does not
> want the money be relied on to make decisions?
> They have no incentive to make good decisions.
>
> What everyone is suggesting is basically
> democratizing research. This is a good idea,
> however, there's a reason why scientific research
> works the way it does. The reason is reputation.

Paper reputations are so old school, we live in a connected society now.

As far a reputation is concerned if people want a share of the foundation pie they would have to be contactable (anonymous if they like within the limits of banking regulations) but they would have some 'virtual' identity that would be associated with their ideas and designs that would be how they gained benefits. Developers would fall over themselves to have their name attached to all their own ideas in the hopes that they get voted some shares of the pie. Donors would get votes based in part on their contribution (time and money) and licensed manufacturers would get votes based in part on their licence percentage and revenue to vote on which designs deserve the most revenue. This would require an accurate family tree of who invented what and you only get paid if you published first. Now all the oddball ideas we like to hoard would come out because they have real value. All the manufacturers would pay licence to be able to use ideas from the pool and have the loyal following of the community. One could make it into a pyramid scheme where you can nominate the shoulders of giants you have stood on and distribute some of your royalties to others who helped you with your idea. In the beginning it would be micro payments (BitCoin fractions) but in time the turnover could rival the research budget of a medium sizes country of a multinational technology corporation. At that point I think we have managed to pay people for their ideas in a equitable way based on what their true value is to the community.


PS. This quoting system is just confusing, I'll figure it out one day I expect, just before it gets changed.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

KalleP Wrote:
> pie ois available. This way people could up vote
> ideas and designs and they would get a larger
> portion of the whole. Adrian Bowyer would get a
> big chunk of the ideas shares but over time they
> would be a smaller percentage or he could donate
> back all his shares or the cash value wherever he
> wanted to.

Before you go roping Adrian Bowyer into this, you should read what he has to say:

[reprap.org]

Quote

My purpose in this post is to say why RepRap is, and always will be, Open Source.

I think it is pretty clear he is not interested in closed source, pretend Open Source, LRC or whatever you want to call it.

It is funny how people invoke someone's name even if they are directly opposed to what is being suggested.

As you cite twice, I have to, too:

Quote
Adrian Bowyer
RepRap developers retain the copyright in their own developments, and may wish to enforce licencing with more rigour than I. Go to it, I say. I merely started this project; I would be alarmed and upset if I were to find my subsequent actions (or lack of them) taken as a prescriptive model.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As you cite twice, I have to, too:
>
>

Quote
Adrian Bowyer
RepRap developers retain
> the copyright in their own developments, and may
> wish to enforce licencing with more rigour than I.
> Go to it, I say. I merely started this project; I
> would be alarmed and upset if I were to find my
> subsequent actions (or lack of them) taken as a
> prescriptive model.

Some things are worth quoting twice

By "enforce licencing" he means enforcing Open Source licensing. He doesn't mean going commercial.

Did you read why he said Open Source is a good idea? His point is that commercializing projects leads to developmental dead ends, and I think he is quite right.

Mr Bowyer is a pretty smart guy, if you are going to convince people he is wrong, you will need to have some pretty good reasons.

Quote
bobc

Quote
Quote
My purpose in this post is to say why RepRap is, and always will be, Open Source.

I think it is pretty clear he is not interested in closed source, pretend Open Source, LRC or whatever you want to call it.

I do - now - fully understand why Adrian Bowers stipulated that the final fully self replicating machine needs to be Open Source - because anything else could slow down the dissemination of the technology. This makes sense from a point of view of helping humanity to progress by delivering:

(1) increases self sufficiency - which would diminish poverty and the incentive to hoard wealth.
(2) the means to spread of optimal technology solutions that deliver environmental, societal and economic benefits.

I do 100% agree that this need to be top priority - in fact - these are stated as the end goals in my (very badly written) book, Compopoly.

If a RepRap store (the open build store?) selling one or more printer variants with the latest and greatest technology from the community stipulated that any royalty to be distributed amongst the developers needed to be set at a fixed percentage (to be debated here) of component cost, then once we had all worked together to figure out how to create a machine that printed another fully assembled machine - motors and other components included - out of freely available raw materials, the royalty would also be reduced to zero, but no one would be particularly concerned about it as we would all be much more or completely self sufficient.

Up until that point, if we need to:

(1) encourage more developers to join the community and;
(2) encourage the community's developers to spend a greater share of their day fast tracking the technology and;
(3) discourage developers going the 100% closed source patent route;

...then we need to put something in place so that they prioritise delivering the value that they can add to progress the project over and above focusing on their job just so that they can meet their living costs and those of their family.

iquizzle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My problem is that KS, while being a nice idea, is
> exploited. People who are not willing to put up
> their own money to fund their project and make it
> a business, instead get everyone else to fund it.
> I'd be in favor of some kind of fund-matching. If
> you're so convinced that your project will be
> successful, then have some accountability and let
> some of your own funds take a fall if your end
> result is a failure.

The problem with Kickstarter is some people don't take the time to learn about or recognize what they are doing when they fund a project. It's simply venture funding supported by individuals instead of the Sand Hill Road bunch; Kleiner, Perkins ; etc. Why would you think that those launching KS projects haven't put a significant amount of resources into the project? It's just as likely that they've put everything they have on the line to make it happen. Many startups are funded from other peoples money at the seed phase and in the growth phase it's almost always outside money. That's how startups work. Haxlr8r works on the same VC model. The difference with KS funders is many don't realize there is risk, that it is funding a startup with a "prize" or "award" if the product is funded and completed.

Quote
bobc
Did you read why he said Open Source is a good idea? His point is that commercializing projects leads to developmental dead ends, and I think he is quite right.

Yes, i did read this and this is the exact reason why I promote accepting -NC licences. Because the GPL encourages commercialisation much more than a -NC licence. Look at RAMPS or Sanguinololu: both are found in almost every commercial shop, at the same time their community development has stalled long time ago. There's not even somebody who would replace the MOSFETs with more suitable ones, a matter of an hour of work.

Compare this to Gen7, which apparently encourages making derivates and continued development.

Quote

Mr Bowyer is a pretty smart guy, if you are going to convince people he is wrong

I'm not. Actually I try to show he's entirely right in the broad picture.

The fundamental flaw I see in your argumentation is, you set this "a non-commercial clause prohibits innovation" as a fixed wisdom. This is a simplification not reflected by reality. We do have commercialisation all over the place, many stalled developments and a community slowly falling into pieces. Even Adrian Bowyer has gone commercial and pretty much given up the RepRap community.

Following Mr. Bowyers ideas would mean to put much more emphasis on replicatability. GPL vs. -NC doesn't matter much as long as you can download sources. Because it's replicatability, the ease of making a copy, which fuels development. Currently many signs point into a different direction.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Senake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
bobc
>

Quote
Quote
> My purpose in this post is to say why RepRap is,
> and always will be, Open Source.
>

> I think it is pretty clear he is not interested in
> closed source, pretend Open Source, LRC or
> whatever you want to call it.
>

>
> I do - now - fully understand why Adrian Bowers
> stipulated that the final fully self
> replicating machine needs to be Open Source -
> because anything else could slow down the
> dissemination of the technology. This makes sense
> from a point of view of helping humanity to
> progress by delivering:
>
> (1) increases self sufficiency - which would
> diminish poverty and the incentive to hoard
> wealth.
> (2) the means to spread of optimal technology
> solutions that deliver environmental, societal and
> economic benefits.
>
> I do 100% agree that this need to be top priority
> - in fact - these are stated as the end goals in
> my (very badly written) book, Compopoly.
>
> If a RepRap store (the open build store?) selling
> one or more printer variants with the latest and
> greatest technology from the community stipulated
> that any royalty to be distributed amongst the
> developers needed to be set at a fixed percentage
> (to be debated here) of component cost, then once
> we had all worked together to figure out how to
> create a machine that printed another fully
> assembled machine - motors and other components
> included - out of freely available raw materials,
> the royalty would also be reduced to zero, but no
> one would be particularly concerned about it as we
> would all be much more or completely self
> sufficient.
>
> Up until that point, if we need to:
>
> (1) encourage more developers to join the
> community and;
> (2) encourage the community's developers to spend
> a greater share of their day fast tracking the
> technology and;
> (3) discourage developers going the 100% closed
> source patent route;
>
> ...then we need to put something in place so that
> they prioritise delivering the value that they can
> add to progress the project over and above
> focusing on their job just so that they can meet
> their living costs and those of their family.

I agree almost exactly on your assessment and wrote similar on the LRC page ad talk:LRC page. To pretend that we are disrespecting the goal by trying to get there as fast as possible seems a bit juvenile.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KalleP Wrote:
> > pie ois available. This way people could up
> vote
> > ideas and designs and they would get a larger
> > portion of the whole. Adrian Bowyer would get
> a
> > big chunk of the ideas shares but over time
> they
> > would be a smaller percentage or he could
> donate
> > back all his shares or the cash value wherever
> he
> > wanted to.
>
> Before you go roping Adrian Bowyer into this, you
> should read what he has to say:
>
> [reprap.org]
>
>

Quote

> My purpose in this post is to say why RepRap
> is, and always will be, Open Source.
>

>
> I think it is pretty clear he is not interested in
> closed source, pretend Open Source, LRC or
> whatever you want to call it.
>
> It is funny how people invoke someone's name even
> if they are directly opposed to what is being
> suggested.

Bobc:

You are reading strange things into what Adrian wrote. He is a RepRap proponent. He (in that very document you cited) says that his feelings about Open Source are not related to RepRap. His personal opinion on how best it could work require evolution and openness.

The reason I brought his name into it is to give him credit and offer him a share in the value he has added to humanity. That is the decent thing to do I think.

He has a salaried job that let him create the first RepRap, either his or their money was used. Take this away and we would not be where we are now. His contribution was charity unless he looked into the future of his business that makes RepRap bits.

Enough said, Bobc you are a lone voice trying to say the sky is pink (just wait you say) and the rest of us say the sky is blue and perhaps it could be made a pretty pink if we all work together and want it so.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013