Open innovation

<p>There was an idea that true innovation could happen within companies. That is what lead to the creation of Bell Labs, or the Xerox research center (PARC). However, that approached changed. Many big companies prefer to acquire younger ones to increase their footprint. </p> <p>On the one hand, this gives a clear <a class="wikilink" href="/exit_strategy/">exit strategy</a> to young startups (it was the case with <a class="wikilink" href="/dispertech/">Dispertech</a>, inspired by the <a class="wikilink" href="/nanosight/">NanoSight</a> example). One the other side, companies that do invest on R&amp;D may end up with projects that won't pursue, not because they are not valuable, but because they don't fit their main scope. </p> <p>When that happens, companies may sit on <a class="wikilink" href="/patents/">patents</a> for years without doing anything. The idea behind <strong>open innovation</strong> is that companies can find ways of interacting with one another in order to build value <em>together</em> instead of independently. </p> <p>Projects can be spun out as independent companies or as joint ventures. They can be incorporated into companies from other companies, etc. </p> <p>A nice example is that of Hollywood ([[literature/<a class="litnote tooltip" href="/literature/@chesbrough">@chesbrough<span class="tooltiptext">The Era of Open Innovation</span></a>|<a class="litnote tooltip" href="/literature/@chesbrough">@chesbrough<span class="tooltiptext">The Era of Open Innovation</span></a>]]), where people float around different producers, studios, etc. Ideas are exchanged, transient associations are formed to make a movie or TV show. </p> <p>Perhaps this is what happens in <a class="wikilink" href="/biotech/">biotech</a> when different companies possess platforms that may end up helping each other. </p> <p>What I am surprised about, is that there is, in principle, no correlation between open innovation and <a class="wikilink" href="/open_hardware/">open hardware</a>. The purpose is not to make <a class="wikilink" href="/intellectual_property/">intellectual property</a> publicly accessible, but just finding alternative <a class="wikilink" href="/business_model/">business model</a>s. </p> <p>Open Innovation, as far as its strict definition goes, does not really focus on <a class="wikilink" href="/knowledge_spill-over/">knowledge spill-over</a> and <a class="wikilink" href="/positive_externalities/">positive externalities</a> but rather in finding ways of adopting the established role of <a class="wikilink" href="/patents/">patents</a> and its intended purpose: <a class="wikilink" href="/patents_can_be_used_to_block_third_parties/">Patents can be used to block third parties</a>, but without becoming blocks for innovation (see: <a class="wikilink" href="/patents_should_not_be_an_obstacle_for_innovation/">patents should not be an obstacle for innovation</a>)</p>