Question to Laure Lucchesi
Easy access to qualitative datasets is a great way to end asymmetrical access to information. As the Gov.UK website states in its charter about Open Data, “the more people and organisations that use our data, the greater the social and economic benefits that will be generated.” However, crunching data is costly, and even though governments tend to deliver data in the most readable way, it could be that sometimes Open Data benefits more large firms that can strengthen their positions thanks to access to data. Should barriers/limitations/conditions be set to prevent larger entities to make the most of their position and help smaller agents (SMBs, startups) innovate?
++ your question. One could also argue the opposite though: that data will favor new entrants… Only more data could provide a clear answer to this 🙂
Many monopolies of giant industries and firms are not based on data. They tend to do their data revolution and incorporate data in their business models.
The start-ups (like Jam) and firms created today thanks to open data might have a quicker expansion. The danger is indeed that the big firms grew on new fields and prevent innovation from small entities.
I do not believe that preventing large entities to use data is a solution. It is contrary to the open data principle that the data can be used freely by anyone. Yet, some publics funds to encourage another type of innovation could be a way.