Document Actions
CrowdSpirit
CrowdSpirit and the CrowdSourcing movement
Newly launched CrowdSpirit apparently want democratize product development. Their approach is the following, nicely illustrated by a website tastefully done in what has now become known as the "Web 2.0 Graphic Style" With the pre-requisite rounded font, cool blue gradient, and the cute little icons.
What blogs, citizen journalism and YouTube have done for media, CrowdSpirit hopes to do for product development. The Scottish-French venture's focus is on harnessing the power of crowds to allow inventors and adaptors to take their products to market. By involving end-users in every aspect of a product's life-cycle, CrowdSpirit aims to set off a crowdsourced manufacturing revolution.
Step 1. The community sends ideas, fine tunes them & votes for the best one.
Step 2. The best ideas and their product specifications are jointly defined with Partners. Community Investors startfinancing the product development.
Step 3. The first prototype is tested and fine-tuned by the community.
Step 4. Customers purchase products thanks to the CrowdSpirit Supply chain. The community ensures the product support and recommends products to retailers.
This is a brilliant idea. With their system, CrowdSpirit is planning to outsource absolutely everything in the product manufacturing process, except the intellectual property rights. This is effectively imitating the open-source process, without the open-source license.
What I find annoying is that they put a big arrow on the front page with the words "Based on your contribution, earn money from product sales" in giant orange letters, while the bottom of the page explaining the collaboration process simply has a tiny little footnote in a faint grey color that mentions "* By giving us your submission, you are assigning us all rights and interests, including all intellectual property rights." And absolutely no mention from them on how anyone contributing to the project would get compensated.
Shouldn't the front page clearly state: "Based on your contribution, WE earn money from product sales"
[via Springwise]- Add Entry to:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
clarification
Crowdspirit, like CambrianHouse and many other sites works on the principle that IP needs to be transferred to them. This is because more than just the inventor might work on and enhance the idea and only if Crowdspirit has the IP can CrowdSpirit work with the supply chain effectively. It would not be feasible to approach a distributor to mass produce the product if the inventor still retained IP. However, it is in Crowdspirit's interests to work closely with all members of the community including inventors because it is the community which makes the project happen and community support which makes the project a success. The inventor, together with other contributors to the project will receive a share of the product revenue - this is not incompatible with CrowdSpirit owning the IPR.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
Intellectual Property vs Distribution Rights
I still think that the point merits some further discussions. There is a difference between Intellectual Property Rights, and Distribution and Licensing Rights. There is also a difference between assigning, or co-assigning such rights to another entity. I'm sure there are a number of ways to approach the problems.
For example, how about having the right in escrow, or have a non-perpetual or non-exclusive license? You could imagine a system where the IP is only transferred if the invention is transformed into an actual product. This would allow an inventor the option of taking the idea elsewere, if crowdspirit doesn't do anything with it.
I'm concerned that crowdsourcing could rapidly be co-opted as source for a patent troll, a company that does nothing but accumulate patent rights and IPR in a number of areas, and uses them for litigation.
If an idea is everybody's in the sense that a large crowd of people collaborated on it, who should this idea belong to? in the software world, the reason open-source development works, is that the resulting product, the software idea, is not assigned to a private entity, but is covered by an open license, so you can keep evolving it.
Why can't that same principle be applied to an environment like crowdspirit?
Hello Olivier, thanks for your questions, this is what we're waiting from the community : to challenge us and to correct our mistake. In that case, we clearly apologize for the 2 sentences that you're mentioning which clearly brings some confusion. So you will see that those sentences will be updated on the tomorrow website release. Regarding your last statement "Based on your contribution, WE earn money from product sales", We can tell you that our business model is based on the fact to reward the community. So we can imagine to earn ALL the money, but this is a very short term approach as we will be able to produce only one product ;-). Let's come back in the coming days on our FAQ that we're going to publish to make sure that it answers all your questions. Do not hesitate to come back to us if it's still uncleared.