On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:16:45 John S. Gage wrote:
>There really should be a thread on this list about business plans (I
>believe I am echoing Thomas). I suppose that, while code may be open
>source, business plans may be considered to be proprietary.
Hi John,
You are absolutely right that business plans are very important and typically
proprietary. What you neglect to mention is that they are most likely protected as
"trade secret". Thus, although businesses may disclose something about their business
plan, it is unusual that they disclose everything. :-( So, for example, if I am
charging a particular patient $50 per visit, then that patient knows the portion of my
business plan that is relevant to our relationship. That patient, however, may not
know how much I charge other patients - or how much I pay my receptionist. These are
considered "trade secrets" and even close colleagues may not be privy to such
information. :-)
>In addition,
>there are purists, I believe, who will say that any mention of business
>plans goes against the spirit if not the letter of open
>source. Nevertheless, software costs money. Where will it come from?
If you read the "purist" essay referenced by Ignacio earlier today, the money is
supposed to come from whoever paid the developer to develop the software in the first
place. The open source part is just supposed to be an added benefit that is incidental
to the fact that you already have the software in hand. The argument is that if you
already developed the software for your own internal use, maybe you will gain more by
sharing it with others (since you weren't going to sell it anyways). The idea is that
if we all chip in as user-developers, then we end up being better off all around.
>Two questions interest me. One, what is OIO's business model?
Great! I love direct question.
OIO's business model is to solve the very tough inter-operability and customization
problems faced by information systems in general and health system in particular, by
integrating, extending, and under-cutting every competitors' price. :-)
Revenue will come from charitable donations of time, expertise, and emotional support
from happy users. If I am fortunate enough to generate revenue through my other
ventures (e.g. my SDSS patent), then I will have more real money to develop the OIO
and travel to meetings (e.g. AMIA, MedInfo).
However, I am not certain that more real money will be too helpful. There are certain
advantages to being not able to develop too fast :-). It gives more time for design
and enjoy discussions on the openhealth list, for example.
>Two, if
>government funding is accepted as the appropriate mechanism to promote open
>source (it hasn't been, this is a gedanken experiment), how will that model
>be brought to fruition in the United States?
I don't think anyone knows the answer to this one but I can give you my speculation.
I think the way to do it is to get funding to extend/modify an existing open source
product rather than proposing a de novo development. This is the approach that I have
taken with the OIO Project. Basically, the argument goes like this: This piece of
software is going to happen regardless of whether your agency decides to fund it or
not. If you give us funding, then it will happen sooner and sooner make everyone's job
easier and save lots of money. If not, this project continues and you won't ever be
able to take credit for it :-).
If this happens enough times with enough publicity, then policy may change.
Hope that helps,
Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
University of California, Los Angeles
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
