And to all: if you know of any distributed or p2p investment models out there it would also be great to see those discussed

Well, I think you could give people a a range of choices to start out with. They could choose a project structure that is like a template that is created to allow them to either stay private, but sell royalty sharing points. Or, they could choose a template that gives them the option of transforming their project into a publicly-traded company, perhaps with the understanding that royalty points will be converted to stock. I can already legally make these types of agreements with people. A central site just makes it easier to find everyone interested in doing it.

Jeremy wrote earlier: “Their tools (Cambrianhouse) aren’t available until a project has been approved (and presumably ownership transferred from the creator to CH). The ideal Open Business site would provide a tool set for anyone to use, allowing the visionary to build projects, as best they can with however many people they can bring in, which the community may not yet see the use of. As well as letting people who’s current idea may be worthless get practice with the system.”

The idea I have goes beyond just software development. Although, I think that the overall idea we’re talking about might end up needing different “site” communities for different types of Open Businesses.

But, to focus on the software for a moment, what you are talking about above could be accomplished. Indeed, Cambrianhouse’s “Norseforge” is based on the open source SourceForge system. So, a similar environment would need to be built (presumably from open source components). But, I think that you are right, that basically, you could do something like Cambrianhouse, but with user-controlled IP and licenses.

But, beyond software peer production, I think that people can also propose ideas and plans for all kinds of possible products and services, and fund and develop them in peer-investing ways, without all of the spoils going to the “enabler”. I hope to have a pilot project launched in the Midwestern US soon that will incorporate these ideas, and will also include case studies and overviews of some of these business models, (along with Micro-enterprise concepts, Participatory Media knowledge, and civic engagement ideas).

I’d be glad to offer my knowledge I gained over six years. I wrote a few white papers that still circulate through various universities talking about this stuff…

Sites like Lulu.com are o.k. but may in time face competition from Open competitors.

My guess is many of the organizations who sponsor Creative Commons would be willing to at least partially fund an Open Business Commons.

Making investment work could be tricky, I’m sure I don’t have enough knowledge to discuss it in better than general terms.

One way to approach investment could be to allow investors to purchase royalty points issued by the project. Purchasing royalty points wouldn’t transfer project ownership or control, only a percentage of the profits. But what if the project wanted to become a publicly traded company? I guess we will have to take this idea as far as we can ourselves, and then try to find qualifed people with the right idea about Open Business to step in. We need a Lawrence Lessig of business. Maybe one will read this and appear as if by magic. Or perhaps we can develop the basic idea to the point where Creative Commons would be willing to take it over. Or maybe we could just point to Cambrian House and say, “Like this, but Open and run by a non-profit.” But leave off the marketing and product design work Cambrian House does. Those roles can be fulfilled by seperate “enablers” as you mentioned.

Regarding the other license/patent problems you raised, the discussion area of Creative Commons seems well set up to develop those things when the need arises. If we agree CC is best equipped to develop the Open Business Commons, maybe the best way to get it started would be to go to their discussion forum and work through their process. I started the topic on their community forum a couple days ago, but that led here. Ironic that it might lead back there again. But maybe not, since CC and the OBC would naturally intertwine.

But, I think that the people who participate should be able to work together in totally for-profit ways. Only the enabler should be non-profit, IMO.

I think that eventually, once an open business, (potentially) peer-production, micro-investment system like this is established, that other “enablers” could emerge who just provide a marketplace for micro-investment, but are for-profit. For instance, you can sell materials on Lulu.com, or ebay.com, and ebay and lulu do not claim ownership, so they are relatively content-friendly to independent creators selling their content on their sites. Similar commons-based for-profit provider business models could eventually emerge for what we are talking about. In fact, they probably will emerge if what we are talking about takes off.

However, I can agree with you for sure, that, to start out, the enabler should be non-profit, although possibly sustained by small contributions from community transactions. I also agree that reputation systems like you describe, and transparency are key to making it work. People can either use templates for agreements, or create custom agreements for their micro-investment proposals.

I had originally imagined more of a “site”, like an ebay marketplace type of thing, where people propose and develop, and transact all on one site. I think projects like ourmedia.org are showing that non-profits can manage large volume projects like this. So, I think your idea is a good way to start this out.