Rethinking Robot Ownership: Comparing Public, Corporate, and Private Ownership Models

Abstract

General-purpose robots, or robots that can autonomously and collaboratively perform a wide range of tasks, are almost universally imagined with a private ownership model throughout the robotics research and development process, in which individual households purchase, own, and maintain their own robots. In this paper, we argue that robot ownership should instead be treated as a central socio-technical design choice that fundamentally shapes who benefits from robotics, how robots are deployed, and which research directions become prioritized. We analyze three ownership models for general-purpose robots: private ownership; corporate ownership, in which firms retain ownership and provide access through subscriptions, rentals, or per-task fees; and shared ownership, in which robots function as community resources or public goods accessed through institutions such as libraries, cooperatives, or community centers. We examine how each ownership model structures access to robots and people’s relationships with them along key socio-technical axes including monetization, distribution, repair and maintenance, and liability for harms. We show that the de facto focus on private ownership risks entrenching unequal access to a potentially transformative technology due to its monetary, temporal, and logistical costs. More broadly, we argue that ownership assumptions quietly but powerfully shape robotics research agendas, contributing to hegemonic practices that remain largely invisible in funding, design, and evaluation. We contend that shared ownership is particularly promising for expanding access to robots and improving human–robot interaction, but that realizing this potential requires shifts in both research practices and policy frameworks.