Thomas L. Friedman recently wrote an interesting case study of innovation in India entitled “When E.T. and I.T. meet ID”. He focuses on three technologies: Energy technology (E.T.), high-speed Internet access (I.T.), and India’s Unique Identification project (ID).
For an E.T. Innovation, Friedman chose Gram Power. Around 400 million people (out of a population of 1.2 billion) don’t have access to grid-based power, but instead use the fossil fuel kerosene, which releases a large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and claims about 1.5 million lives in India every year. Gram Power would like to be the solution to this untenable situation. According to Gram Power’s co-founder Yashraj Khaitan: “Our Smart Microgrid system comprises renewable-based generation infrastructure installed locally in the village [typically solar panels on a cellphone tower], and a proprietary smart electricity distribution system that tackles the three main challenges of reliable energy access in India: theft and pilferage that forms the root cause for fifty-eight percent of energy losses on the utility grid, high capital costs to extend the utility grid to remote low population areas and intermittent and unpredictable power supply.”
Friedman ends his article with, “Anybody who thinks the age of innovation is over isn’t paying attention.” I agree, but his energy technology (E.T.) innovation, Gram Power, isn’t innovating correctly. Something as fundamental as energy technology shouldn’t rely upon a “proprietary…electricity distribution system” – especially in a developing country like India. Using proprietary code is analogous to retrofitting central air in your house a year after you build it instead of installing it while building; another company can’t (easily) expand upon Gram Power’s infrastructure in the future. Instead, make the code open source. Open source code doesn’t infringe upon capitalist values – Gram Power can still sell and install its units – it simply lessens the likelihood that a monopoly develops. While innovating, companies must remember that there’s a difference between being a steward and being a dictator.
New York Times columnist TI’m not saying that people shouldn’t innovate to solve problems, especially when those innovators are helping people become, as Friedman says, “unpoor.” That’s a noble goal. I just ask that intellectual property, especially that having to do with software advances, doesn’t get locked away. Yes, that’s idealistic, but it can be done – probably most easily in a developing country as the precedent for it’s-my-work-you-can’t-have-it practices isn’t as deeply entrenched as it is in developed countries.
Look at any of the major open-source software projects around today. Some of my favorites include numerous Linux operating systems (known as distributions, or distros for short), the WordPress blogging platform (yes, Tumblr is not the only blogging system!), ThinkUp (a platform to analyze information on social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Google+ that even the White House uses), and Mozilla’s Firefox web browser. All of these platforms are thriving, enveloped and developed by strong communities, which make some of the biggest contributions to the development of the software. One example is the huge library of extensions for Firefox, much of it developed by community members. According to the Mozilla website “Mozilla is a proudly non-profit organization dedicated to keeping the power of the Web in people’s hands. We’re a global community of users, contributors and developers working to innovate on your behalf.” “Users”, that’s you and me. Anyone can contribute. That’s far superior to having some company dictate how you use a system that is supposed to enable you to be more creative. In the spirit of creativity alone, get rid of proprietary code! In the case of Gram Power, obviously the energy users would not develop the software that runs their village’s grid, but the code would be available to other companies to improve upon and utilize – both to extend the energy grid within India and also to install other instances of the energy grid all around the world. Think of it like installing the same WordPress software many different servers across the Internet.
It simply doesn’t make sense for us to be reliant upon a closed-source, proprietary tool, when that tool (energy technology) aims to make us more creative. It’s hypocritical. Closed in creativity closed in dies. Stop harping about protecting intellectual property that could change the world, and you have something that could rival the Industrial Revolution. Think of Samuel Slater, the guy from your old U.S. History textbook, who secretly emigrated from England in 1789, having memorized the plans needed to build and operate the first textile mills in the United States. The twenty-first century equivalent is going to happen if the code for projects like Gram Power isn’t made open source. It’s for the greater good. And, honestly, there really is no downside. •
