A note from Erica:

Here’s an interesting departure from our regularly scheduled blogging about the environment and the Olympics, which often dominates the coverage here on RespChi.

Beijing-based blogger Van Yang writes about CSR in the context of intellectual property rights, something which I briefly mentioned last year, in response to an article by Cornell University Matt Perkins. Blogger IP Dragon does a good job of covering this topic, too, and he wrote an interesting post, referencing RespChi, about the links between intellectual property and the environment here.

Anyway, back to Van: The question is, can open sourcing and copycat engineering actually be a good thing when it comes to creating simple yet innovative solutions to problems like e-waste, pollution, poverty and other crises? We’ll let Van continue asking the questions…

=====

By Van Yang

Intellectual property concerns are a big reason why many businesses aren’t too keen on entering the Chinese marketplace.  Why put all the time, money and effort into lawyers and patents if someone off the street is going to reverse-engineer it, then sell it on the street for 30% the price and with a picture of a monkey on it?

But are these engineers–these entrepreneurs–really pirates or heroes?  We often lament how companies reject open standards and try to stifle you with proprietary file types, connection heads and configurations.  I understand the desires of a company to segment market-share and promote its own technology, but the consumer is the loser when they have to buy different types of phone chargers when they buy a different gadget.  Not only are they forced to spend more money, but the environment doesn’t fare well either with this excessive generation of e-waste.

I was inspired to this topic because of a recent cell phone charger incident.  Having just arrived in Beijing, I’m borrowing a friend’s cellphone.  She had to leave for a business trip before giving me the charger, so I went out to buy my own.  I meandered into a little local shop, perusing the shelves for a charger.  Not finding one, I asked the store clerk, “Do you have any cell phone chargers for a Samsung phone?”

Entirely ignoring the brand, he responded, “Cell phone charger? Yeah, we have those. Here.” After opening up the box and staring at it for a minute, I had no clue how this was supposed to work.  So then he showed me the Omnipotence Travel Charger:

Isn’t that interesting?  They broke the design concept down to the most common denominator.  It’s not very convenient, since I can’t talk and charge at the same time, but useful nonetheless.  It cost me 8 yuan, which is about US$1.50.

Perhaps Chinese copy-cat engineers aren’t pirates, but are the incognito vanguard for an open-source technology movement. Open-source technology refers to the philosophy that each individual or organization develops technology for the common good with out expecting profit or patenting. Open-source has gained the most ground in the IT arena, its greatest champion being Google, Inc.  Google’s “do no evil” motto includes allowing users to freely import and export their data into applications other then its own.  Since users can easily try different programs without losing their data integrity, the playing field is leveled among applications.  The “best” program is measured by popularity, and software programmers are constantly forced to improve and innovate to keep ahead of the competition.  The end result is high quality products at either a competitive price or, the most attractive of all prices, free.

In the physical engineering world, the Goodstove movement seeks to design efficient stoves for the millions using traditional or less efficient biomass stoves, so that these clean stoves, if adopted, would help in mitigating climate change.

Now, this is not about advocating the open-source of everything. Talented people who design amazing products should be the ones who reap the reward for their efforts.  Even Google balances and mixes its open-source with closed source.  But it does beg the question about a community of designers and engineers opening and embracing certain standards for the benefit of all.   Open-source boosts innovation by tapping into the community to help polish, publish, and propagate products, and invites new competitors to enter the field, whether they be a start-up in San Deigo or a workshop in Wudong.

What do you think?  A bunch of pirates or hero innovators?

Heard it from IP Dragon:

Matt Perkins, who studies sustainable energy and Chinese at Cornell University, writes this post, “Intellectual Property is Green,” on his blog for The Cornell Daily Sun:

a critical component of solving China’s environmental issues (and protecting both the U.S.’s and China’s economic vitality), is greater IP enforcement.

Read the full article here.

IP Dragon was kind enough to write a post about my blog today.

IP Protection in China Challenge Peanuts Compared to China’s Environmental Challenge, Though Parallels Abound

So basically, the work that I’m trying to accomplish–spreading information about China’s environment–is really important. But, as IP Dragon wisely points out, environmental issues do not exist in isolation (just like everything else in Mother Nature), and they transcend through all aspects of life, including IP protection.

Now what has IP protection to do with the environment?

I wrote it before and write it again: The moral implication of buying counterfeited or pirated goods is not only that they infringe the IPRs of the owners, but that it might be manufactured by children, in bad working conditions, pollute the environment etc. Read more here.

China is trying to hush hush staggering statistics to come out in the open about China’s environment, because of fear of social instability. . . .

This points at an other parallel between IP infringements and pollution. The lack of transparency by the Chinese authorities regarding the environment and IP protection and enforcement justifying it by saying that otherwise social instabilty will break out is not sustainable.