Scott Wilson

Ajit Kambil

De repente, Martina Dirweg se sentiu quase fisicamente doente. Seu irmão mais velho, Evan, a quem ela amava muito, podia fazê-la se sentir assim com algumas palavras bem colocadas em um telefonema. Sem querer fazer mal, ele poderia desestabilizar os planos dela para sua empresa junto com sua sensação de bem-estar. Não foi justo da parte dele.

OuZhCBiMhuprfy7UgpHlM/NRqGxRPpfWVnSFuwE5eDSj0ou8QAp/K4e3yF4PQRv0KooDKaWKMeCI//LpBGuYBMopoVAe/jxe5mhTrR9IOaFrakERZHw/LKdXvY4fVh8A

Reprint: R0804A
Amp Up, a wildly popular electronic-music game, is the brainchild of KMS&#8217;s cherished programmers, who now spend their time trying to keep customers dazzled with upgrades. But a couple of start-ups have ripped off the idea using their own code&#8212;which is open source. Now they&#8217;re demanding that KMS float with the rising tide and join the open-source community. How could the company make money without its IP? And why should it try? Four experts comment on this fictional case study.
Jonathan Schwartz, the CEO of Sun Microsystems, says that if KMS is confident it knows what its customers will want next&#8212;and if it&#8217;s content with a small corner of the market&#8212;it should stay proprietary. But it will pay a reputational price.
Eric Levin, the executive vice president of Techno Source, suggests that KMS take a middle path: license its software to third-party companies and add features to promote community building. This approach could fund itself through royalties or fees and would allow KMS to approve or veto third-party products.
Gary P. Pisano, of Harvard Business School, points out that an open-source strategy could increase Amp Up&#8217;s rate of improvement, enhance users&#8217; satisfaction with the game, and reduce KMS&#8217;s development costs. But if the company stops competing on the basis of its code, it had better be sure of the strength of its downstream capabilities.
Michael J. Bevilacqua, of the law firm WilmerHale, warns that KMS risks greater liability for intellectual-property infringement if it joins the open-source community, where code carries no guarantee that it doesn&#8217;t infringe on someone&#8217;s IP rights and providers offer no indemnification.

Open Source: Salvation or Suicide?

Reimpressão: R0804A Amp Up, um jogo de música eletrônica muito popular, é uma criação dos queridos programadores da KMS, que agora passam o tempo tentando manter os clientes encantados com as atualizações. Mas algumas startups adotaram a ideia usando seu próprio código, que é de código aberto. Agora eles estão exigindo que o KMS flutue com a maré crescente e se junte à comunidade de código aberto. Como a empresa poderia ganhar dinheiro sem seu IP? E por que deveria tentar? Quatro especialistas comentam sobre esse estudo de caso fictício. Jonathan Schwartz, CEO da Sun Microsystems, diz que, se a KMS estiver confiante de que sabe o que seus clientes vão querer a seguir — e se estiver satisfeita com uma pequena parte do mercado — ela deve permanecer proprietária. Mas pagará um preço de reputação. Eric Levin, vice-presidente executivo da Techno Source, sugere que o KMS escolha um caminho intermediário: licencie seu software para empresas terceirizadas e adicione recursos para promover a construção de comunidades. Essa abordagem poderia se financiar por meio de royalties ou taxas e permitiria ao KMS aprovar ou vetar produtos de terceiros. Gary P. Pisano, da Harvard Business School, ressalta que uma estratégia de código aberto poderia aumentar a taxa de melhoria do Amp Up, aumentar a satisfação dos usuários com o jogo e reduzir os custos de desenvolvimento do KMS. Mas se a empresa parar de competir com base em seu código, é melhor ter certeza da força de suas capacidades posteriores. Michael J. Bevilacqua, do escritório de advocacia WilmerHale, alerta que o KMS corre o risco de ser mais responsável pela violação de propriedade intelectual se se juntar à comunidade de código aberto, onde o código não garante que não infrinja os direitos de propriedade intelectual de alguém e os provedores não oferecem nenhuma indenização.

C&oacute;digo aberto: salva&ccedil;&atilde;o ou suic&iacute;dio?

Reprint: R0804A Amp Up, a wildly popular electronic-music game, is the brainchild of KMS’s cherished programmers, who now spend their time trying to keep customers dazzled with upgrades. But a couple of start-ups have ripped off the idea using their own code—which is open source. Now they’re demanding that KMS float with the rising tide and join the open-source community. How could the company make money without its IP? And why should it try? Four experts comment on this fictional case study. Jonathan Schwartz, the CEO of Sun Microsystems, says that if KMS is confident it knows what its customers will want next—and if it’s content with a small corner of the market—it should stay proprietary. But it will pay a reputational price. Eric Levin, the executive vice president of Techno Source, suggests that KMS take a middle path: license its software to third-party companies and add features to promote community building. This approach could fund itself through royalties or fees and would allow KMS to approve or veto third-party products. Gary P. Pisano, of Harvard Business School, points out that an open-source strategy could increase Amp Up’s rate of improvement, enhance users’ satisfaction with the game, and reduce KMS’s development costs. But if the company stops competing on the basis of its code, it had better be sure of the strength of its downstream capabilities. Michael J. Bevilacqua, of the law firm WilmerHale, warns that KMS risks greater liability for intellectual-property infringement if it joins the open-source community, where code carries no guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on someone’s IP rights and providers offer no indemnification.

Código aberto: salvação ou suicídio?

Resumo.

Partner Center