Biobazar: The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology

Citation

Oppenheim, C. (2009), "Biobazar: The Open Source Revolution and Biotechnology", Library Review, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 387-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530910961800

This book by an Australian legal expert takes an unusual approach. In a closely argued text, she examines the history and success of the open source software movement, explaining how it works and why it is so successful despite the use of software and patents by many commercial software producers. She then speculates whether a similar approach could and should be adopted by biotechnology researchers. She concludes that not merely could such an approach succeed, but that it deserves to.

On the face of it, then, this book is aimed at those who undertake research in biotechnology, and to a lesser extent to those that advise them on intellectual property matters and support them with venture capital. However, the book is unlikely to appeal to such readers because of its dense style. It is written in the style of a PhD thesis – learned, well‐researched, peppered with supporting references, but frankly, rather dull. This is a great pity because the history of the open source movement is fascinating, and the potential for such ideas in biotechnology are considerable. The book also assumes a lot of prior knowledge about what biotechnology is about.

Occasionally, the author is cryptic in style. For example, she states “the majority of patented technologies are never used because people who make things can't afford the risk”. It is difficult to know who she has in mind with this statement – the owners of the patents or third parties? The author claims that defensive disclosure is “not always easy or cheap”, when it is incredibly easy and cost‐free when the internet is used. Indeed, she surprisingly fails to consider the potential role of the internet for open source biotechnology in any depth. The author also worries about clauses in licences that terminate a licensee's rights under the licence if he or she sues the licensor, when these are not common and are probably illegal anyway. The author claims ownership of copyright both prevents third parties from copying the item and empowers the owner to reproduce the item, whilst ownership of patents simply prevent third parties from making, using or selling the item. In fact, both sets of rights are negative only, i.e. they give the owner the right to prevent third parties doing things, but neither right gives the person authority to make copies themselves, as both with copyright and with patents other legal impediments (such as pornography in the case of copyright, and other pre‐existing patents in the case of patents) may prevent the owner from exploiting their intellectual property right.

The author says surprisingly little about Creative Commons, and where she does, she makes a mistake, claiming that such licences “may or may not require attribution” when in fact all CC licences require attribution. She also claims CC licences are potentially problematic because the “human readable” form may conflict with the “lawyer‐readable” form, when it is clear that the formal lawyer‐readable contract is the one that controls the entire relationship. Finally, despite coming from an Australian author, the book has a heavy US bias.

These are all minor quibbles. The book is extremely competitively priced, and is well typeset. It has an in‐depth index and a long list of notes to the text and references. It makes a convincing case, but the key question remains: who is the book aimed at? As written, the book would only appeal to academics researching or studying the fields of software and biotechnology industries, and the economics of intellectual property rights. The author needs to write an alternative, much shorter, much more readable book to convince those decision‐makers who should be reading about her ideas.