Will democratising of Innovation lead to futility of Patents & copyrights?

There is the amazing trend of democratizing innovation carried out by Open Source Software..remember a blog I had written on the same topic fome time back....it seems the abstraction of the thoughts there has finally leading me to understanding the idea of democratizing innovation...thanks to great open source book by Eric Von Hippel and the book by MS Krishnan and CK Prahalad in their book "New age of Innovation"...


Interestingly, we are seeing more user initiated innovations shared freely and openly off late. It seems the key motivation for sharing the innovationa re:
1. The purpose of sharing innovation to benefit the society... Great example generics in the market by developing countries like India...I know pahramaceutical companies will hate this, but who cares! other example include wikepedia
2. The value of getting back refinements to the innovative idea by user community that leaves the product or service richer than it would have been otherwise..Great example is Linux...other example include the custom Semiconductor development kits by Xylinx
3. The motivation one gets by merely sharing their learning experiences to wider audience out there....Great example Innovation community portals (i've written about these earlier)

Now lets look at it from the financial angle:
we know that innovation leads to sunken cost for the innovator...there can be the direct costs or several proxies to these costs such as invested time, effort, and so on...We all know from our business experience that sunken costs are always unavoidable and unrecoverable unless some greedy accountant out there capitalizes it and amortizes it over the the life of the innovated product/service so he can avoid paying additional taxes ;-)...so whats the big deal in not being too obsessed with recoverability of the cost...the benefits of sharing openly that I listed above far exceeds the sunken cost for some....

So now lets come to the entire idea of having patent and copyright laws preventing/limiting the wider commercial benefit of an innovation...what it really means for the commercial benefit is to exploit the common need of the large community of users by the manufacturer/service provider to make money...in the process what really happens is the innovative product/service focus is to not only recover the sunken cost but also to generate more benefit to satisfy the greed of the organizations....The product/service meeting mass-market needs is not good enough for some users of it, who have either found better use for it by innovating more on the product...good example here is the surf board holders innovated by surfers to enable them jump over waves pointed in the book by Eric von Hippel...or alternate uses for the product :-) Benadryl used as a good substitute for chep intoxicating agent....

Atleast in the 21st century of consumerism we will see more users and the communities will start creating more innovation on the product making the product more of a commodity....the patents and copyrights then naturally becomes futile either by filing new patent over the base and completely altering it...well some of the TRIZ fans would love this.....Net-net what it will do is displace the manufacturer from the Product-Development/Engineering and Service development domains. They may only survive in the realm of Manufacturing or Service execution spaces purely due to the benefits that can accrue due to scale economies...

So what does it really mean....i've really argued (may not be a very erudite one) for futility of patents and copyrights and favoring the open source innovation as long as I'm not a manufacturer of the service provider with huge sunken costs :-)....Whats your view...