Global Journal of Management and Business Research, D: Accounting and Auditing, Volume 22 Issue 2

guide participants to open technologies and markets built by patent owners, thus making strong network effects. V. R esearch C onclusions and P rospects The breakthrough of open-source software on intellectual property theory is reflected in three aspects: copyright, patent, and trademark rights. It has its own property rights system constraints in the form of license, requiring joint ownership of property rights. Product rights are entirely open to the outside world, and anyone can use, modify and release source code software free of charge. As a product of rapid technological innovation in today's society, blockchain plays an essential role in many financial and non-financial industries. The first generation of Bitcoin takes MIT license's open strategy, and the second generation of Ethereum takes GNU GPL, which can't solve the innovation difficulties. The original blockchain developers made everything open for free based on the recognition of open-source culture. However, neither individuals nor enterprises can prevent many subsequent blockchain developers from applying the core program for further development and filingmany patent applications. It will cause the original blockchain developers to worry whether these patents will slow down or even endanger blockchain technology innovation. According to the dilemma mentioned in the article, this paper tentatively proposes three possible solutions: industry-standard license plan, blockchain open-source license plan, and open patent plan. First, an industry-standard licensing program, aimed at resolving from different companies, different projects, different communities, and even different countries encountered in open source software collaborative innovation problems, is helpful to improve compatibility between open source components, improve joint operation, to reduce the system transformation between time cost and workforce cost, promote the further incremental innovation and open innovation. Second, whether the MIT license of Bitcoin or GNU GPL of Ethereum cannot solve the problems that some developers can apply for patent successfully even without code contribution. The emergence of the GPLv3.0 license with the "contributor" and "contributor version" would help original innovators freely participate and contribute. This can alleviate the concerns raised by open-source believers that patent protection could hinder technological innovation. Third, open patent scheme, that is, the legal commitment of the patent holder to disclose patent information and allow external participants to use it, and not to file patent litigation. Advanced technology companies such as IBM, Google, and Tesla have all made attempts. Studies have shown that the disclosure of patents can guide the construction of the technology and market of the disclosed patent holders and help establish network effects. Taking blockchain and its open-source strategy as an example, this paper puts forward the intellectual property dilemma encountered by open-source software. Its uggests solutions, which are of great significance for filling the research space in this field and expanding the theoretical research on open source intellectual property. The next step will be a valuable attempt to deepen the effects of different schemes further and explore their detailed mechanism of action. R eferences R éférences R eferencias Institutional Logic, Dilemma and Suggestions of Open Source Innovation: A Case Study of Blockchain 52 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue II Version I Year 2022 ( )D © 2022 Global Journals 1. Audretsch D. B., Stephan P. E. Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: sources and incentives [J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1999, 9 (1):97–107. 2. Blockcerts [EB/OL]. GITHUB, https://github.com/ block chain-certificates. 3. Christopher C.M. The bridging model: exploring the roles of trust and enforcement in banking, bitcoin, and the blockchain [J]. Nev. L.J., 2016, 139-143. 4. Contreras J.L. Patent pledges: between the public domain and market exclusivity [J]. Michigan. State Law Review, 2015, 2:787. 5. Crosby M., Pattanayak P., Verma S. & Kalyanaraman V. Blockchain technology: beyond bitcoin[J]. Applied Innovation, 2016, 2:71. 6. Fargo S. It’s bitcoin’s birthday: whitepaper released 8 years ago today [EB/OL]. BITCOIN.COM . https:// news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-birthday-whitepaper.2016- 10-31. 7. Hammad A. Secure anonymous transaction apparatuses, methods and systems: U.S Patent 9,773,212[P].2017-9-26. 8. Herbert J., Litchfield A. A novel method for decentralized peer-to-peer software license validation using crypto currency blockchain technology [J]. Proceedings 38 th Australasian Computer Science Conference, 2015:27-35. 9. Jia K. Development of blockchain should attach importance to open source governance experience [N]. 21st Century Business Herald2019-11-07. 10. Jones P. Interview: public patent foundation’s dan ravicher[EB/OL].IWN.NET .https://lwn.net/Articles/64 378.2003-12-23. 11. Koulu R. Blockchains and online dispute resolution: smart contracts as an alternative to enforcement[J]. A Journal of Law, Technology & Society, 2016, 13(1):1-30. 12. Lessig L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world [M]. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2002. 13. Mougayar W. The Business blockchain: promise, practice, and application of the next Internet