Asymmetries – LES France

Technology transfer and international standardization are two essential vectors for disseminating and exploiting research results. They combine and complement each other to form a major lever for innovation, particularly for digital technologies such as 5G, cybersecurity and soon AI or quantum. But the associated processes are structured by multiple asymmetries – of information, power and resources – which favor certain players to the detriment of others. Is open source changing this? only in part.

In the context of bilateral technology transfers, i.e. negotiations between a laboratory or technology transfer office (TTO) and a business, the balance of power can be significantly distorted. Without being caricatural nor exhaustive, the following usual asymmetries can be enumerated:
– Information: the laboratory, the researcher masters the technology, the industrialist masters the product and the market.
– Resources: disproportion in legal teams and budgets between laboratory/OTT and company
– Power: laboratories can be particularly dependent on private funding.
– Culture: between open science on the one hand, and the business confidentiality required by competitive dimensions on the other.

These asymmetries need to be considered very carefully, as they can lead to technologies being transferred being undervalued, or to unbalanced contractual clauses.

International standardization is an important, and increasingly geostrategically critical, form of technology transfer. However, this differs from bilateral transfer in that it implies a considerable competitive expansion, the consideration of horizontal market dimensions specific to multi-lateral contexts, and the global scope of standards. Behind the associated mechanisms, the terrain is not at all neutral: significant asymmetries shape who captures value and who remains on the sidelines. Dealing with the nature of the associated asymmetry problem, in all its forms, thus becomes a fundamentally strategic issue. Indeed, compared to bilateral technology transfer, asymmetries are exacerbated:
– Expertise: dominance of a few giants, as evidenced by the presence of experts and the number of technical contributions.
– Economic: the cost of participation (resources, meetings, lobbying) is borne in the short term, whereas the return on investment is seen over the long term, on a scale that is not just that of a single company, but of an entire value chain, of an industry.
– Information: contributing to the standardization effort means early access to strategic drafts, and not taking part means missing out.
– Power to influence: alliances and coordinated votes guide decisions
– Geopolitics: standardization is a soft power tool

Ultimately, these asymmetries condition who captures the value when it comes to exploiting a standard. Indeed, technological standards are negotiated and monetized, in particular through essential patents – another extremely interesting subject to develop in terms of asymmetry, and which will be the subject of another post. These considerations are crucial, because behind a standard (5G, AI, cybersecurity, etc.) lies not only the control of tomorrow’s markets, but also, and paradoxically, questions of technological sovereignty. Reducing asymmetries means preventing a few players from imposing their rules and capturing most, if not all, of the value; it means giving ourselves the means to truly enjoy technological sovereignty.

Open source is an opportunity to reduce certain asymmetries, for example:
– Reducing the barrier to accessing information and developing expertise through publicly accessible code, documentation and contributions. The ability to perform R&D for players who do not have the financial means to acquire and negotiate proprietary licenses.
– Hands-on participation by SMEs, startups and research laboratories.
– Accelerated dissemination, since open source by definition favors collaborative ecosystems.
– The development of a logic of sovereignty, since open source reduces dependence on a small number of players.

However, open source does not eliminate all asymmetries. Indeed, the major players dominate thanks to their human and financial capacities. They are also in a position to significantly influence roadmaps and impose frameworks that become de facto standards. The asymmetry of influence remains very strong. Most structured open source projects require a significant investment to influence decisions. Small structures contribute on a voluntary basis (the term is chosen and important), while the big players finance full-time maintainers. The asymmetry of resources and decision-making power persists. Finally, patent strategy around open source is often misunderstood, as are open source licenses. Publishing an implementation in open source to lock in the use of standards, while retaining patents peripheral to essential patents (SEPs), creates a form of “open core” that maintains asymmetries of an economic nature.

These considerations of asymmetry and reduction are one of Cobelty’s key areas of expertise, and an important part of its genesis and value proposition in the field of strategic intelligence. Technology transfer, international standardization and open source development are areas of strategic coopetition where asymmetries largely determine the distribution of value and market access. Reducing these asymmetries strengthens collective competitiveness, while guaranteeing more inclusive innovation.