[Discuss] GE and Quirky partnering

[Bogdana Rakova]

Wow, I think this is just Awesome! :) Thanks for sharing Andrew and I can't
wait to see what would come out of this new collaboration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogdana Rakova,
BG: (359) 895422043 US: (650) 8085 836

bobirakova.tumblr.com | Hutgrip <http://hutgrip.com/> |
Agilart<http://www.agilart.com/>
 | Hackidemia <http://hackidemia.com/> |
@bobirakova<https://twitter.com/bobirakova> |
:)


On 16 April 2013 03:05, Andrew Malcolm Stanley
<a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com>wrote:

> I found this article interesting:
>
> The internet of things gets industrial strength collaboration with GE,
> Electric Imp & Quirkygigaom.com/2013/04/15/the… <http://t.co/jEmA8V5090> via
> @gigaom
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:11, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Probably not. Quirky's IP FAQ hasn't changed.
> http://www.quirky.com/about/ip
>
> Quirky still owns everything and pays "inventors" a royalty.
>
> I suppose this might count as open washing in the sense that the GE&Quirky
> partnership is leveraging the word "open" to get more press than they
> otherwise would have. But they mean "open" as a verb, not as an adjective
> or noun. They mean that they're literally making it easy to see GE's
> patents.
>
> They're right that average people don't really understand patent law, so
> they get nervous about the possibility of infringing a patent and getting
> sued.
>
> But they're implying that average people have any hope of actually
> commercializing a physical product to the point where their revenue is
> large enough to make them worth suing. That's not a realistic fear. It is a
> common rationalization for why an "inventor" isn't actually selling their
> "million dollar idea."
>
> No, if GE wanted to make their patents available to the open source
> community (like as a charitable deduction?) they would just publish a
> promise like Google and IBM did. They wouldn't need a third party like
> Quirky. Hell, if they were serious about allowing open source infringement
> then they wouldn't HAVE to partner with anyone. A dozen portals would
> spring up overnight to make the patents browse-able.
>
> The reason Quirky is involved is that they have demonstrated
> year-after-year increases in revenue. They've got a successful business
> model. GE just wants to use them for free R&D. It's a technology transfer
> program. There might not even be a standing legal agreement between GE and
> Quirky. For all we know Quirky might have to negotiate every license on a
> case-by-case basis. The primary value from the partnership is the brand
> name recognition.
>
> When Quirky or GE actually starts talking about new legal/business
> structures it will get interesting. Until then it's just a slick NYC tech
> startup getting another round of investment and hyping it with professional
> multimedia. The only difference in this case is that the investment is in
> the form of branding and technology transfer instead of the usual cash
> influx.
>
> Haha, actually, I wonder if Quirky had to give up any equity to make the
> deal happen :-) that would be interesting!
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
>
>  On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Chris Church <
> thisdroneeatspeople at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Alicia Gibb wrote:
>>
>> This phrase: Quirky and GE are working to return patents to their
>> intended purpose, to provide inspiration for future inventors.
>>
>> gives me the feeling that they are giving up their rights to the patents,
>> not just allowing the patent itself to be viewed, as you said, we can
>> already view patents since they are public, so that would be ridiculous. I
>> think what they mean is that they will be opening up their patents for
>> people to use rather than licensing them. But I also believe in unicorns,
>> so maybe I'm just optimistic.
>>
>> Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the real determining factor here, in regards to "open-ness" will
>> be the answer to this question:
>>
>> "If I design a product around one of these patents, and Quirky turns it
>> down, can I produce it on my own without being sued by GE?"
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130416/267576d5/attachment-0001.html>