Good idea to discuss this!

I am generally pro patent but also pro open-source. However, I think patents need to be much more restricted (in time and what is patentable) to avoid all the abuse we have seen lately.

When it comes to "development" innovations, there are really very few that fulfill a "sufficient level of technical innovation" that I would consider necessary for a patent.
Often a lot of social research and usability testing has to go into these, but technically speaking a UDDT for example is "a box with a funnel to collect urine", so nowhere near something one could (should be able to?) patent.

Open-sourcing ones feasibility tests and social studies is of course another thing, but once you have successfully installed your innovation, anyone can basically see how it works exactly and copy it, so I don't see much point in keeping it secret (and these things are not patentable anyways).

But even for "higher level innovations" I don't really think a patent is necessary. The need and possibility to scale up these things is often so large that there is plenty of room for you and all your copying competitors to grow for a duration at least as long as the patent would grant you protection. Thus all the patent would do is to prevent real scale-up and thus it isn't desirable in a development project.

Competition for donor funds is of course another concern, but there should be only very few rare cases where you as the inventor aren't considered the "go to expert" on the topic. So either you have the capacity to adsorb the funding, or you should let a competitor do it.

Dear all,

I wanted to start a discussion to collect views of everyone on the « patent » in the sanitation sector. Patents have often restrained global development, blocked progress and provided monopoles to companies. Examples are endless of abuses from HIV medication to computer software, including Monsanto life patenting, etc …

One of the basic questions to me is:
• Can the global public financing agencies be considered as world public money, therefore every project should share all the data, plans, inventions, etc … without any restriction?
• If a private organization is involved partially in a project, can it justify that a patent protection is created and information retain, even with a consequent public fund involve?

The arguments in favor of the patent system are often the following:
• We invested in the R&D so before we paid back our investment we don’t share it.
• We don’t share the plans of the product because people would replicate it badly and therefore it would be bad advertising for the product.
• We want to keep the lead on this technology, with the RfP system you always need to prove you’re better than your « sector colleagues – competitors ».

The question is always trickier when we talk about big infrastructure requiring skills and years of researches than simple pit latrine.

In the sector, I’d be extremely curious to know what the policies on the patent are for the following great inventions (just examples …) :
• Sharing policy for the “reinvent the toilet” awarded inventions, can B&M Gates foundation actually be considered as world public money? Considering we all gave a lot of money to Microsoft …
• DEWATS from BORDA, you shared a lot already and this is all in your honor. But what is your detailed policy on the subject cause you don’t really put online “all” your knowledge, how to design, build and operate a DEWATS.
• LaPeDa (Latrine Dehydration and Pasteurization) Technology, funded by the e-Thekwini municipality to make pellets out of sludge. Are you planning to keep the technology secret so the municipality will create a business out of it ?
• Akvo FLOW system, which I like the line “Akvo is established as a non-profit foundation, and works under the principle “not for profit, not for loss”. We run our software as a service for over one thousand partners, so we can develop and support it at a lower cost than any partner could achieve doing the same in-house”. You said it all.
• Sanitation marketing is supposed to enhance competition, in the case of the IFC program in Kenya they say at the end of the article: “If you are a manufacturer or distributor interested in entering the sanitation market in Africa, please contact us for more information”. Are you really willing to create a totally open competition or will you short-list the number of manufacturer to make sure private sector will feel secure (at least at the start).

These are just examples and if we take a broader point of view we could include in this thoughts:
• All the PPP projects, because there is a little private money invested, investors usually put as a condition that no feasibility studies are shared so they’re guaranteed a small monopoly on this.
• PhD researches, when there’s a little private fund then the research is usually not available anymore

I’m a big supporter of the open source in general but I’d like to understand better your views on this aspect of our work, it seems we (development workers) are always parted between our dedication to the cause / willingness to share and the fact we need to actually win proposals, always stay competitive and pay our bills.

Thanks for your participation to this debate.

Ben