Are you a post-secondary Canadian student entrepreneur?  Do you have a technology-based startup?  If you answered yes to these questions, take a look at the information below.  It just may be what you're looking for.  Deadline for the first bootcamp is February 14, 2010.

Waterloo launches new bootcamp for young entrepreneurs to build future economy

If you know of a student entrepreneur that would be interested in this, please don't hesitate to pass it on. 

We’d like to advise you of an exciting initiative that the Ontario Centres of Excellence’s Centre for Commercialization of Research is undertaking in collaboration with the University of Waterloo to launch a new type of collaborative training camp for young entrepreneurs.

The University of Waterloo recently issued a news release announcing the VeloCity Entrepreneur BootCamp (VEB) which will allow some of the most promising young entrepreneurs in Canada to learn how to help create the country's future economy.  The University of Waterloo is drawing on its widely acknowledged strengths in innovation to launch the boot camp along with some funding from Ontario Centres of Excellence’s Centre for Commercialization of Research.

Waterloo joined forces with the Ontario Centres of Excellence's (OCE) Centre for Commercialization of Research to set up VEB. Other key partners include the Accelerator Centre; Communitech, which will provide programming and access to their network of mentors; and the Impact Entrepreneurship Group, which will help promote VEB on campuses across the country.

The initiative, which runs from May to July, will be based in Waterloo's VeloCity, a trail-blazing hybrid student residence and high-tech incubator which in less than two years has spawned several strong start-up companies in mobile communications and digital media through its teamwork approach.

The VeloCity Entrepreneur BootCamp (VEB) will enable top student entrepreneurs to fast track the launch of their technology-based startups. Selected students will be mentored by some of Canada's most experienced and successful entrepreneurs. They will live rent-free at VeloCity and will work out of office space provided at no charge by the Accelerator Centre in Waterloo's research and technology park.

The students will each receive $3,000 (up to a maximum $9,000 for each team) and own 100 per cent of their intellectual property. As well, they will attend seminars and workshops on important business-related topics. It is the first nation-wide, residence-based program of its kind in North America.

At the end of the bootcamp, students will be ready to launch their products or services for the benefit of the Canadian economy. They will also be eligible for additional seed funding through OCE's Centre for Commercialization of Research's new entrepreneur program.

We are very pleased to be part of this pioneering initiative. In aiming this program specifically at students we are helping to create a culture of entrepreneurship among young people which is critical to the long-term development of innovation.

Student applicants have to email their proposals to velocity@uwaterloo.ca by Feb. 14. Besides a resume, students must submit an overview of their start-up outlining its novelty and marketability as well as a YouTube video promoting the idea. Velocity Entrepreneur Bootcamp is open to any post-secondary student in Canada.

Applications will be reviewed by an expert panel and decisions made and communicated by the week of Feb. 22.

For further details about VEB, go to www.velocity.uwaterloo.ca.

On Monday, November 2, 2009, Precarn Incorporated hosted a showcase and luncheon announcing the funding 14 new T-GAP projects.  Mike Lake, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry spoke and made the presentation of the winners.  The showcase exhibited T-GAP projects creating a “buzz” that set the stage for the luncheon. Click here to view the press release.

The photo below shows the winners that were present at the event.

 

Front row l-r: Jason Gillham, 2G Robotics, Waterloo, ON; David Hickle, Xtel International Ltd., Acheson, AB; Roanne Levitte, Perceive Solutions Inc., Montréal, QC; Simon Leblond, SCL Elements, Montréal, QC; Dr. S. Murthy, SIGPRO Wireless Inc., Ottawa, ON; Babak Sardary, Trusterra Technologies Inc., North Vancouver, BC.
Back row l-r:  Gary Gudbranson, VP, Operations, Precarn Incorporated; Jack Scott, Precarn Board of Directors Chair, Naikun Wind Energy Group, Vancouver, BC;Mike Lake, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, Edmonton, AB; Dr. Henri Rothschild, President & CEO, Precarn Incorporated, ISTP Canada and CIIRDF; Paul Vice, Dreamcube Technologies Inc., Toronto, ON.

About Precarn's Industrial T-GAP (Technology Gap Assistance Program)

Precarn's T-GAP program is targeted at helping startup companies working in intelligent systems  get their products to market faster.         

There  is a recognized chasm in the commercialization of technologies  especially in very small companies. It is the black hole on the  'research to reality' road where innovative and viable technologies  get lost. Because the development step often lies outside the domain  of traditional investment sources, many valuable technologies and  ideas are needlessly shelved. In an effort to address this situation,  Precarn allocates available funds to advance technologies that  show commercial promise. The Technology-Gap Assistance Program (T-GAP)  is the conduit through which the funds are awarded.          

Press coverage extended the buzz generated during the event.  The following media have covered the November 2nd event:

CBC Radio, Ottawa (November 2, 7:45 a.m. interviewed with Jack Scott and M. Rioux)

CFRA Radio (November 2, Business at Night show interview with Jack Scott)

CTV National Network (November 2, evening news)

Exchange Magazine (Nov. 3)

National Capital Scan (Nov. 3)  - Precarn spreads the wealth

New Brunswick Business Journal(November 3)

Ottawa Business Journal (November 3)

Ottawa Citizen(November 3)

Waterloo Record (November 2)

Research Money (November 9, 2009 - Volume 23, Number 17, Pg. 7 News Briefs)

Ottawa Business Journal (November 9, 2009)

Vancouver Sun (November 11)

NLP Website (November 11)

Over at Biomedical Photometrics, they are making possible some of the highest resolution images in the medical industry. They believe they have just created the largest pathology image ever at 61 Gigapixels.

In their words, here is what they say about what they do:

"Now you can scan a very wide area at very high resolution.At Biomedical Photometrics, we re ushering in a new era in confocal microscopy that enables panoramic fluorescence and brightfield imaging of tissues and cells for basic research and clinical drug development. By harnessing the imaging power of telecentric laser scan lenses in  place of conventional microscope objectives, our automated laser  scanning imaging systems provide an imaging area more than 100 times</strong> that of a standard microscope, with the same resolution. The result: Large-specimen, high-resolution imaging</strong>  that dramatically improves measurement of protein and gene expression  and rapidly delivers advanced information about the molecular biology  of diseased tissue."

Join us in congratulating Mark Matthews, President and CEO, and his company Remco Solid State Lighting Inc, in being selected as one of the 15 finalists for the "Clean 15" Cleantech Competition for 2009.

You reach Mark Matthews at  mark.matthews@rogers.com.

The offlicial Clean15 website is at www.clean15.com.

 

 

As a member of the steering committee of the CAIAC Precarn Intelligent Systems Challenge, I am inviting you and your company to consider submitting a challenge problem for this exciting new competition series.  I believe that your company could benefit much from being involved in this competition, and we believe that you are in an excellent position to propose a challenge problem. Please find attached a brief overview of the competition, which also describes what a challenge problem is. There are also sponsorship opportunities, which are outlined in the attached Call for Sponsorship.  

In order to be able to formally announce the competition at the 2009 Intelligent Systems Collaborative Conference at UBC Okanagan (25-27 May 2009) (http://aigicrv.ok.ubc.ca/), please express your interest as soon as possible, as we need to receive a preliminary proposal by April 24th.  In the meanwhile, we would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to hearing from you.  

Summarizing Next Steps: 

1. Express your interest in submitting a challenge as soon as possible, via competition@precarn.ca or call Precarn at 613 727 9507.
2. You pose a challenge problem related to your organization or industry, by April 24.
3. The event committee will select a set of challenges.  
4. Nationwide competition to be launched on IS 2009, May 25-27
5. Students specializing in Intelligent Systems will tackle your challenge  
6. Winners will be announced at the IS conference in 2010
7. Your company will get opportunity to transfer IP and sponsor the event

 

With best regards,

Morten Irgens
On behalf of the Steering Committee of the CAIAC Precarn Intelligent Systems Challenge

I just completed my Masters in Computer Science at the University of British Columbia. I was fortunate to participate in robotics research at UBC as part of a Precarn-funded R&D project in the CARIS Laboratory. The CARIS lab is currently performing research on industrial robot manipulators in partnership with Braintech Inc., a local vision and robotics software company. As a computer science student in a mechanical engineering lab with a partner in industry, I had a rare opportunity to learn simultaneously from researchers from both sides of the academic/industrial divide. My research focused on planning paths for a camera-equipped robot manipulator so that it could maintain its view of a target in spite of obstacles in the workcell. The initial work was done in simulation, but it was the experiments done on a real robot arm that were instrumental to the final success. There was a certain satisfaction in watching the robot navigate around obstructions while keeping its eye on the proverbial ball. I'm very grateful not only for the opportunity to perform research, but also for the chance to test an application of that research. Working in a multidisciplinary project highlighted the challenges involved with bringing research to bear on real industrial applications. Overcoming those challenges provided me with experience I would otherwise not have been exposed to. It was enjoyable, hard, satisfying work, and was just what I was looking for.

---

An afterword from the Webmaster: BTW Matt is in the job market...  I can't think of a better candidate!  That's him in the picture... Not only has he completed great research but has been part of an industrial project solving a real world problem.  A great catch for  employer who would like to hire a student who can hit the ground running.  If you are interested he can be contacted by email, and his research is showcased at his UBC website.

---

[La version française suit en bas.]

The Canadian Artificial Intelligence Association (CAIAC) and Precarn Inc are inviting students at all levels (high school, college and university) to participate in the 2009 Intelligent Systems Challenge. Computer professionals in industry and academia are also invited to pass this message to interested students and to consider advising a student team. The challenge is a programming contest where students are asked to write a program to automatically detect rendezvous between ships at sea from infrequent, irregular and possibly unreliable data. This is an important problem for the protection of Canada’s sovereignty and the enforcement of maritime laws. To participate, please visit the challenge website: http://www.intelligent-systems-challenge.ca. Download the full problem description and start programming today! Registration is currently open (till Feb 15). Cash prizes will be awarded to the best solutions in each student category (high school/college, undergraduate and graduate levels). Winners will be announced at the 2009 Intelligent Systems Collaborative Conference in Kelowna BC on May 27th, 2009.This year’s challenge was proposed by Vancouver-based MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA), the company that developed Canadarm, Radarsat-2, and the satellite image processing systems used for Google Earth. The challenge is a joint initiative of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Association (CAIAC) and Precarn Inc. The goal of this annual competition is to

• promote innovation in Canada;
• establish and strengthen contacts between academia and industry in Canada;
• increase the awareness of and interest in technologies and methods from the areas of artificial intelligence and intelligent systems for addressing the challenges faced by Canadian industry, organizations and society as a whole;
• contribute to the development of students’ aptitude and ability through solving challenging real world problems.

Pascal Poupart, University of Waterloo (on behalf of the 2009 IS Challenge Organizing Committee) and Holger H. Hoos, University of British Columbia (on behalf of the IS Challenge Steering Committee)

=============================================================

L’Association pour l’Intelligence Artificielle au Canada (CAIAC) et Precarn Inc. invitent les étudiants de tout niveau (secondaire, collégial et universitaire) à participer au Défi des Systèmes Intelligents 2009. Les professionnels de l’informatique en industrie et en milieu académique sont aussi invités à faire parvenir ce message à des étudiants intéressés et à servir de conseiller auprès d’une équipe d’étudiants. Le défi est un concours de programmation où les étudiants sont appelés à programmer une solution pour détecter de manière automatique un rendez-vous entre deux navires en mer à partir de données clairsemées, irrégulières et possiblement incorrectes. Ce problème est particulièrement important pour la sécurité nationale et l’application des lois maritimes canadiennes. Pour participer, veuillez visiter le site web du défi : http://www.intelligent-systems-challenge.ca/home/index_fr.html. Téléchargez la description complète du problème et commencez dès maintenant à programmer! Les inscriptions sont possibles dès aujourd’hui (et jusqu’au 15 février). Des prix en argent seront décernés pour les meilleures solutions dans chaque catégorie d’étudiants (secondaire/collégial, universitaire 1er cycle et universitaire 2e/3e cycle). Les gagnants seront annoncés à la conférence collaborative sur les systèmes intelligents à Kelowna en Colombie-Britannique le 27 mai 2009.Le défi de cette année a été fourni par MacDonald, Dettwiler et Associés (MDA), la société de Vancouver qui a développé le bras canadien, Radarsat-2 et les systèmes de traitement d\'images satellites utilisés par Google pour cartographier la terre. Le défi est une initiative conjointe de l’Association pour l’Intelligence Artificielle au Canada (CAIAC) et Precarn Inc. Les objectifs de cette compétition annuelle sont de

• promouvoir l’innovation au Canada;
• promouvoir les contacts entre le milieu académique et l\'industrie au Canada;
• sensibiliser et augmenter l\'intérêt pour les technologies et les méthodes dans les domaines de l\'intelligence artificielle et des systèmes intelligents pour adresser les défis rencontrés par l\'industrie canadienne, les organisations et la société en général; et
• contribuer au développement des aptitudes et des habiletés des étudiants par la résolution de problèmes difficiles mais réels et stimulants.

Pascal Poupart, Université de Waterloo (au nom du comité d’organisation du Défi SI 2009) et Holger H. Hoos, Université de la Colombie-Britannique (au nom du comité de pilotage du Défi SI)

A Canadian technology success story, the HandyScan 3D, was a key technology used to help solve a crime during the first episode of CSI:  New York earlier this fall and again on the November 19th episode.  The HandyScan 3D is a product from Creaform Inc, a Québec City area firm.

The HandyScan product, or today a suite of products, began its life as a research project at Université Laval.  Intially nurtured by IRIS (Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems) T-Gap, Precarn followed this up with core funding under the Precarn Small Company Program.

From its begining as a research project back in 2005, the HandyScan product suite has worldwide sales.

This is one of the more visible successes of the Precarn collaborative R&D program which focuses on fostering research, development and commercialization of Canada's worldclass technology.

---

We are interested in telling your success story.  Please comment below or eMail us your success story here.

---

Tuesday this week I attended a 1-day course given Trevor Wilkins of Holis Associates, a course that every new entrepreneur or inspiring entrepreneur should attend! The name of the course was "Introduction to Advanced Business Communication" but it could have easily be called "An Introduction to Fearless Selling for Dummies, opps, I mean Techies..."

I was attending the course primarily to evaluate it as an addition to Precarn's business mentoring services, but managed to pickup a few tricks to add to my near 25 years of experience in marketing and sales - proving even an old dog can learn something new.

I was amazed at how well the course breaks down the critical elements of the sales process and provides a methodology that can be easily applied in all sorts of sales activities that the new entrepreneur can handle and apply immediately. Whether the sales activity involves customers, investors, partners or employees this course provides the tools for success, and quite frankly the confidence needed by technology-based leaders of start-ups.

By pure chance, I attended the course with two executives (read techies) from a company that Precarn is currently funding. I was amazed, but more importunately these executives were amazed, how the methodology worked so well - their takeaway from the course was a set of sales tools and confidence!

The ABC Sales course gives the student a  step by step process which they  learn, exercise and then customise to their own situation. They find  that they can now quickly and fearlessly elicit what the customer wants to take away from working with them, its true, not assumed, value, and the information needed to make that person an advocate of buying what is offered. This training is not just for  sales staff - the skills taken away can be employed by presales,  support, management, customer service or marketing staff alike to  improve the profitability and effectiveness of the operation.

My TakeAway from the day is that this tool just has to be a part of the Precarn Centre for Commercialization.  A second TakwAway is that if there is that much value in th eone-day introductory course the full versions must be dynamite!

For more information, contact Holis Associates at www.holis.ca or email Trevor Wilkins.

Precarn has partnered with MITACS Inc. to deliver, a graduate research internship program that connects the expertise in intelligent systems to Canadian industry.

The internship program, ACCELERATE Canada Canada’s Graduate Research Internship Program, provides an excellent opportunity to apply advanced tools, techniques and methodologies to important research issues and problems facing organizations. Through the program, new research issues are brought to the academic community, a new generation of highly-qualified researchers is trained and partners are able to leverage cutting-edge research to further their organization.

Graduate student interns spend 50% of their time on site with a partner, researching an issue of interest to all parties. The balance of the intern’s time is spent at their home university, further advancing the research under the guidance of a faculty supervisor. Funding for the $15,000 internship is shared equally between ACCELERATE Canada and the sponsoring company.

Applications are being accepted now. To apply go to AccelerateCanada.ca.

Download more information on the internships or email Sylvia Ralphs-Thibodeau at MITACS  or Rick Schwartzburg at Precarn.

---

Let us know what you think of this new program!

---

There is a growing perspective in Canada that we simply must get more of our world-recognized research and development out of the lab and in to the marketplace.

Hence, Precarn has just designed and released a new $2.5 Million R&D Program where there is an emphasis on R&D projects with a small "R" and larger "D" component that can demonstrate near-term commercialization potential. While a project must have a research problem to solve, it will not form the significant portion of the project. Projects that produce technologies that may be ready for commercialization at their conclusion are eligible for funding and are encouraged.

Furthermore, to  emphasize  this commercial perspective, Precarn is looking for projects that can be completed on or before December 31, 2009.

With a focus on the introduction and advancement of innovative made-in-Canada solutions, this initiative aims to fund commercially-viable projects that address the challenges of the Canadian environmental technology and manufacturing industries.

Proposals need to be submitted by October 3rd, 2008.  For more information, contact Derek Best and/or download the RFP.

 

 

There is a recognized chasm in the commercialization of technologies especially in very small companies. It is the black hole on the "research to reality" road where innovative and viable technologies get lost. Because the development step often lies outside the domain of traditional investment sources, many valuable technologies and ideas are needlessly shelved. In an effort to address this situation, Precarn has allocated $500,000 in funds to advance technologies that show commercial promise. The Technology-Gap Assistance Program (T-GAP) is the conduit through which the funds are awarded.

The new T-GAP fund is specifically targetted at small start-up companies, typically in the 2 to 10 person size.

Proposals can be submitted at anytime, and are evaluated against the program criteria as they come in, until the available funds are exhausted.

So get your proposal in ASAP!

Download the T-GAP proposal requirements >>here

For more information contact Rick Schwartzburg at (613) 727-9507 ext 231 or by eMail.

I (Rick) would welcome your comments about the program!

Precarn's mission is all about great R&D and commercialization of innovations of intelligent systems. This year Precarn recognized two students, a professor and a company for their contributions to these goals.

Precarn is celebrating its 20 years of success by recognizing excellence in research and successful commercialization of robotic and intelligent systems. The two winners of the 20th Anniversary Awards and our student awards are examples of this excellence, and a critical demonstration of the power of the Precarn collaborative R&D and commercialization model.

The Precarn 20th Anniversary Research Excellence Award winner is Dr. Septimiu (Tim) Salcudean, a professor at the University of British Columbia, which recognizes his work in the field of haptics.  >>more

The Precarn 20th Anniversary Commercialization Success Award winner is Point Grey Research for the Triclops stereo vision system. >>more

The 2008 Gordon M. MacNabb Scholarship was awarded to Mr. Ambrose Chan, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia. Mr. Chan is currently participating in the Precarn-supported "Bin-picking" project that is led by Braintech of Vancouver.  >>more

The Best Student Poster at the IS 2008 Conference in Windsor (May 28-30) was awarded to Frédérick Jean as student at laval University. The title of his poster was "View Normalizations of Body part Trajectories". >>abstract

 Your perspective is valuable!
What innovations, research or commercial success of a Canadian intelligent systems technology has impressed you?

by...
Paul Johnston
President & CEO, Precarn Incorporated

The following is the third in the series of postings which will address the subject: " Why IP? (Why intellectual property?)"

>>Link to the previous post in this series

Meaningful Patent Coverage

It would not be wrong for a patent attorney to tell an inventor: "I can always obtain a patent for you." This is the truth. A patent can always be obtained by making the stipulated monopoly, the patent coverage that is defined by the "claims", highly specific and narrow. If a shovel with a notch in the side of the blade is not new, then perhaps the shape of the notch can be argued to be new and useful. And if not, then perhaps a secondary detail of the shape of the notch meets this requirement. If so, you can obtain a patent on a shovel with a notch with the secondary detail. Patents of this type generally fall within the categories of invention 2), 3) and 4) as referenced above. Accordingly, in managing a corporate patent strategy, a responsible Intellectual Property Coordinator must be sensitive to when the potential scope of patent coverage will have to be narrowed-down to the point where the patent will be commercially useless (other than as a publicity patent). This situation will only become apparent during the patent prosecution exercise when the patent attorney reports-back to the client and advises on the results of the patent examiner's prior art search. A good patent attorney doesn't need to be instructed by the patent examiner as to the limits of what can be patented. That should be apparent from the prior art search. This, in turn, justifies investment by a patent applicant in a thorough pre-filing patent search. Unfortunately, this is not the general rule in industry practice.

Patent Validity

Assuming you have a relevant invention which consumers will seek out and which incorporates a feature with a have-to-have-it quality which is novel and un-obvious, and for which there is no close substitute in the marketplace, then the patenting exercise can still fail.

Patent applicants have a duty of making a full, indeed virtually perfect, disclosure to the patent office. That is part of the contract between the government and the inventor. The patent applicant must describe how to implement the invention in a manner that will enable its duplication after the patent expires. And the patent applicant must define his own monopoly. This is done in the patent "claims" that conclude every patent disclosure document.

The drafting of patent applications can be compared to brain surgery. A little slip can cause a lot of damage. There must be no false statements or false promises. And everything has to work. Furthermore, in defining the patent monopoly through the patent claims, a patent agent may inadvertently introduce a word such as "centrally" for the location of a hole, when it is not essential for the hole to be in the center. This produces a loophole for competitors (pun intended). Every word in a patent claim is a limitation. A competitor only infringes when they do everything listed. If they can avoid one item, then they do not qualify as an infringer. While the patent attorney is responsible for drafting patent claims, with support from the inventor, the inventor is responsible for bringing forward a complete "story" for the invention. It is for the inventor to advise as to the circumstances under which the invention will work. If it's a chemical invention, the inventor should stipulate the range of operability. And it is not sufficient to simply patent the best zone; patent claims should extend to the second best, and the third-best, to keep competitors from getting close with their competing products. Thus the inventor should explore the invention up to the limits of where the invention doesn't work.

The Wright brothers invented the idea of twisting the ends of an airplane wing in order to make an aircraft bank to the left or to the right. They did not conceive of the idea of introducing a small, secondary, wing, an "aileron" that would do the job just as well. Luckily their patent claims were drafted in a way that covered such an alternate arrangement. Thus a well drafted patent will identify all such alternate arrangements and insure that they are captured by carefully crafted patent claims.

Next Installment:  4 truths about patents

Your perspective is valuable!
What have been your experiences in getting a patent?

by...
David J. French
Intellectual Property Lawyer, Miltons LLP

The following is the second in the series of postings which will address the subject: " Why IP? (Why intellectual property?)"

>>Link to the previous post in this series

Scope of a Patent

Before a corporation commits resources to a patenting exercise, care should be taken to address a key further consideration. Not only must the invention be relevant, but the patent must also be meaningful. What is a meaningful patent?

A meaningful patent focuses on a feature of the invention which competitors will want to adopt in order to satisfy the consumer's need. A meaningful patent addresses a "have-to-have-it" feature or aspect of an invention.

Please note the use of "feature or aspect". A patent is always granted for a feature or aspect of a product. A new, improved, shovel is only new because of some feature that makes it new and different from prior shovels. A patent always focuses on a specific feature. And it is that feature that has to meet the "have-to-have-it" standard in order for the patent to be meaningful.

Patent Novelty

But we still have not arrived at the decision point for seeking patent protection. Patents are only issued for inventions that have not been previously made available to the public. More precisely, patents are only issued for features and products that are new and are not obvious in view of what has been known before. The contract between the government and the inventor is that the inventor will disclose a new and unobvious inventive concept, explaining completely how the invention may be exploited, and in return the government will grant a limited monopoly, now generally established at 20 years from the date of filing. Thereafter the public may freely use the invention.

And here is the biggest difficulty of all. If you have a really good idea, then it is very likely that it has been thought of before. Many people think of good ideas. If a thorough search is carried out, there is a substantial prospect that you will discover that a good invention has been previously either used publicly or disclosed in the literature or in some other form of media. That is why patents are examined: to search the prior art and determine whether the idea being patented is novel and inventive (non-obvious).

But patent searches are fallible. Whether done by your own patent attorney or done by the patent office examiner, it is likely that some piece of prior art will be overlooked. Therefore, even if you obtain a patent, a patent once granted can be invalidated for failing to address a concept which is new and inventive. This means that merely obtaining a patent cannot be counted as perfect success. The object should be to obtain a patent which is valid. And this in turn, justifies investing considerably in searching the prior art to find out just what scope exists for obtaining valid patent protection. It is at this stage that many apparently relevant inventions fail to meet the test that would justify processing them as part of a corporate patent strategy.

To repeat, you can have a perfectly relevant invention with a have-to-have-it character, for which there is no close substitute presently existing in the market, but, because it is disclosed or suggested by the prior art, you cannot obtain a valid patent that will have meaningful coverage.

Next Installment:  Meaningful Patent Coverage

Your perspective is valuable!
What have been your experiences in getting a patent?

by...
David J. French
Intellectual Property Lawyer, Miltons LLP

I am a strong advocate of Web 2.0 and recently came on this interesting application of Web 2.0 concepts to support collaborative research.  I have  reposted  a blog post by kdawson on Tuesday April 22,, 2008 at slashdot.org, and appended a few of my own words:

Scientific American is running a major article on Science 2.0, or the use of Web 2.0 applications and techniques by scientists to collaborate and publish in new ways. "Under [the] radically transparent 'open notebook' approach, everything goes online: experimental protocols, successful outcomes, failed attempts, even discussions of papers being prepared for publication... The time stamps on every entry not only establish priority but allow anyone to track the contributions of every person, even in a large collaboration." One project profiled is MIT's OpenWetWare, launched in 2005. The wiki-based project now encompasses more than 6,100 Web pages edited by 3,000 registered users. Last year the NSF awarded OpenWetWare a 5-year grant to "transform the platform into a self-sustaining community independent of its current base at MIT... the grant will also support creation of a generic version of OpenWetWare that other research communities can use." The article also gives air time to Science 2.0 skeptics. "It's so antithetical to the way scientists are trained," one Duke University geneticist said, though he eventually became a convert.

The article in Scientific American Magazine - April 21, 2008, titled "Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?" by M. Mitchell Waldrop, poses the question, "Is posting raw results online, for all to see, a great tool or a great risk?"

What is your opinion?

• Will such an open collaborative work in your field of research?
• Are you prepared to reveal your research before you publish?

by...
Gary Gudbranson
Director, Marketing & Communciations, Precarn Incorporated

the following is a beta test - try at your own risk...

Since joining my company 5 years ago, I have had the privilege to be involved in the hiring process and shaping of the engineering team. Finding and retaining the right engineering professionals in today’s dynamic work environment is far from trivial. An example of a successful hire is picking out a candidate fresh out of university from the many that I met and seeing him move up to the role of a key project manager. On the flip side, one candidate vanished from the surface of the planet after day one and never to be heard again. What does it take to be a good engineering professional in this Flat World to use Thomas Friedman's term? While I do not claim to be anywhere close to a HR specialist, I will offer my view on what it takes to thrive in a constantly evolving technological and innovation driven world.

1. Strong engineering fundamentals and the right background. Let me first get the most trivial criteria out the way an engineer must have the right background and sound engineering fundamentals. If the need in a project is to be filled by an electrical engineer, an accountant would not fit the position. Similarly, a software engineer would not fit the position of a mechanical engineer. Technology is changing at such rapid pace that it is unrealistic to expect any engineer to have all the right experiences. However, given that an engineer has the right background and is strong in the fundamentals, he/she can always adapt the fundamentals to solve new problems.

2. Passion and attitude. Having passion in the profession and the right attitude is the most important criteria in my opinion. An engineer with the right background but limited experience has every reason to be successful if he or she has the drive, willpower, and desire to accomplish the task. On the other hand, if the engineer has all the right experience and background for a position yet has no passion and desire to accomplish the task, the probability that the engineer fails is already above 50% even before he/she starts.

3. Know what you don’t know. The next most important factor is to know what you don’t know. Engineering systems and the challenges to be solved are becoming more complex than ever. While an engineer may not have all the answers, the ability to determine the critical issues early on and seek solutions cannot be valued more. Engineer who fails to recognize his/her limitation and has no idea what question to ask when facing new challenges will find it difficult to create value and thrive in today’s fast paced technology environment.

4. Valley of Knowledge. Breath and depth of knowledge is the last point I’ll discuss here. An engineer with highly specialized knowledge may thrive in a larger organization. However, the same engineer may find it hard to adapt in a smaller organization where the skill sets required from project to project are typically not identical. I am not encouraging engineers to become jack of all trades. I visualize this as a valley of knowledge where at the bottom of the valley, an engineer should have depth of knowledge in two to three specialties. Moving up the valley, the engineer should be good at a few other skills, have decent knowledge in some other issues as we move further up the valley, and finally exposure to wide array of issues at the top of the valley.

Disclaimer: The opinions I express here are my own and not necessarily shared by colleagues at my company.

What is your opinion?
What do you believe are the attributes required to thrive in today's ever changing technological and innovation driven world?

by...
Roderick Lee
P.Eng., M.Sc., MBA candidate, Project Manager, InvoDane Engineering Ltd.

(Why intellectual property?)
This is the first first of a series of postings which will address the subject of protecting IP.  The focus of these articles will include:

• What you should know about intellectual property,
  i.e. patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, trade secrets
• Why does it matter?
• What should you do?

The focus will be on practicalities but inevitably will deal with issues that are complex. Like riding a bicycle, at the beginning this may be difficult, but once you know how it becomes easy. And it can be fun!

In this first installment we discuss:

A Corporate Patent Strategy

Senior corporate officers, hearing all the buzz words about "patents", "intellectual property" and "Rembrandts in the Attic" are now likely to be turning their attention to establishing a corporate patent strategy within their firm. This article is intended to provide an outline as to what that expression means.

Fundamental Premise: the Invention

It may sound trite, but there cannot be a patent strategy without an invention that matters. And a proper patent strategy should only be applied to an invention that matters. And such an invention must be combined with a patent that is effective.

It used to be said that there were three kinds of patents:

1) a valuable, a functioning, monopoly that has market impact,

2) a publicity document sought by the marketing department, and

3) a vanity patent.

To that, we can add a fourth:

4) an inertia patent

An inertia patent is the kind of patent that arises when, at the time of filing a patent application, the exercise appears to be a good idea. However, as so often happens, bad news arises in the course of the patent prosecution process. The examiner finds prior art which is quite similar, thereby greatly reducing the scope of any potential patent. At that point, rational economic logic may justify abandoning the patent application. However, human nature being what it is, many applications issue to a patent after the scope of coverage has been shrunken-down by the patent examination process. Unfortunately, such patents attract ongoing regular maintenance fee payments and give the illusion that something useful has been achieved.

Deferring comment on the classes of patents under items 2) and 3), we will address item 1).

A relevant invention addresses a need in the marketplace which can be technically met by a supplier at a cost which customers are willing to pay. Further, and this may be implicit in there being a "need", there should be no close substitute for the invention. Essentially: "If you make it, they will buy it". Without passing this test, an invention is not really relevant.

Of course, inventions can be speculative in a sense that, although not likely to be marketable today, future circumstances may make the invention relevant. And a corporation may decide that they wish to file for a patent for publicity purposes. But for the purposes of establishing a rational corporate patent strategy, patenting should be triggered when a relevant invention has been conceived.

The Patent Monopoly

Assuming we are dealing with a relevant invention, this does not necessarily mean that it is worthwhile to pursue the patenting process. Patents are about obtaining monopoly rights. The essence of a patent monopoly is the ability to stop others from having access to an invention. A patent is really only relevant if a need exists for which there is no close, alternative, substitute.

If a patent is akin to a gate that is erected on a roadway, it is pointless to install the gate on a road in the middle of the prairies. People will simply walk around rather than pay the toll. If competitive alternatives do exist, then this will set a ceiling on the price that you can charge for a patented product. Otherwise, people will go elsewhere. Once the impact of the competitive marketplace is taken into consideration, it may be necessary to conclude that a relevant invention is not worth patenting. The ideal situation for patenting is the case where the closest substitute product is so much less desirable than the invention that the consumer will be willing to pay a premium to have access to the invention.

This is where the patent monopoly comes in. The monopoly prevents the competitor from adopting the invention and competing directly on a price and quality basis. Instead, freed of such competitive pressure, the patent owner can set his price according to what the consumer is willing to pay. In some cases, e.g. pharmaceuticals, consumers are prepared to pay amounts vastly exceeding the cost of production of the invented product. This gives rise to a "monopoly profit", which is perfectly proper in the case of a patent, based on the contract between the state and the inventor that gives rise to the granting of patents.

To be continued...

Your perspective is valuable!
What have been your experiences?

by...
David J. French
Intellectual Property Lawyer, Miltons LLP

Today Precarn announced a $2.1 million funding boost to promote the research and development (R&D) efforts of  the Canadian companies applying intelligent systems to solve commercial problems in the environment and manufacturing sectors.  

This Request for Proposals is seeking project proposals for the development or implementation of intelligent systems technologies especially in areas related to environmental technologies (clean-tech), and manufacturing, especially automotive parts. Up to $700,000 is available per project. 

With a focus on the introduction and advancement of innovative made-in-Canada solutions, the initiative aims to fund commercially viable projects that address the challenges of the Canadian environmental technology and manufacturing industries.

The deadline for submissions for concept documents is May 9, 2008, and for final proposals June 27, 2008.

For more information about this new initiative, call Derek Best at (613) 727-9507 or email best@precarn.ca.

>>download the press release

>>Download the RFP

 

by...
Derek Best
Director, Research Programs, Precarn Incorporated

In Part 1 I suggested that there is a significant market and sphere of influence opportunity for Canada if we were to concentrate on staking out a major claim within the global knowledge economy around the transaction of knowledge.

Let me offer a few suggestions as to how we might do this.

Branding
Canada enjoys international recognition and acclaim for its education system - from its public system with its provincial and territorial flavours to its community colleges to its private vocational businesses to its universities full of foreign students and professors who once were foreign students to its distance education providers who leverage our connectivity. We need to celebrate this and focus a significant part of the Canadian brand around knowledge and learning.

 It is encouraging to see the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) starting to do exactly that - integrating its education organizations around a regional image. Regional images are a good start but we need to be national when dealing with the decision-making capitals of the world.

Champion
We need a trade champion within the federal government to pull together the various jurisdictions around a trade strategy. Lacking a federal Minister of Education, this must come from within Foreign Affairs and International Trade (where we promote foreign student enrollment) or Industry Canada where the origins of SchoolNet and the connectivity agenda can be found.

Business Model
We need to turn the current business model, based on the attraction of lucrative foreign students, on its ear. The information highway and its transportation metaphor conjures up different visions outside the developed world. The transportation links - railways and roads - were used to extract resources from the colonies. The new breed of young leaders warns that the information highway threatens to suck knowledge and talent out of the transitional economies.

The new business model must concentrate on working with the new economies to develop their internal knowledge economies - building new institutions, modifying, distributing and licensing content, exchanging teachers and professors, implementing the communications-based learning networks and delivering industrial training. These partnerships will lay the foundations for mutual economic and trade prosperity.

Choose the Market
There is a dramatic economic shift occurring as the traditional markets are challenged by developing and transitional nations and economies - and these are the regions where Canada enjoys enormous goodwill. Parts of Africa, the former Soviet Union, Latin America and provinces within China and India. I say provinces because Canada simply doesn't have the scale to be a player in "China" or "India". We should focus on strategic provinces with which we can share our success in dealing with asymmetric challenges and within which we have an opportunity to be a top five trading partner.

 This is only a start to developing new markets in the knowledge-based economy, but start we must.

What are your thoughts?

by...
Grant Thomas
Vice-president, Digital Opportunity Trust

This is a mantra that I have often promoted when I travel, particularly as it pertains to Canadian relations with developing and transitional economies where there is scope to increase Canada's sadly diminishing international sphere of influence.

The premise is simple. In the global, knowledge-based world within which we now operate, transaction of knowledge is increasingly underpinning political, social and economic international relations. The countries that lead in promoting and establishing knowledge-based relationships will prosper and their international influence will grow. And, there is no country better positioned to be the intellectually invasive partner to the world than Canada with our benign blue passport, our multicultural society, our highly respected education system with its diverse flavours derived from multiple jurisdictions, our distance education systems and institutions, our bilingualism, our two legal systems, our advanced connectivity, our technology-based services, our peace-building consensus-driven personalities, our anti-acquisitor values, our network of foreign student alumni who have learned in our universities, our experience with asymmetric challenges and overbearing neighbours - all wrapped up in a still valid image of niceness. 

Who better than Canada, indeed. But the reality is that there are other "nice" guys out there who are eating our knowledge-based lunch, led by the Scandinavians, the Aussies and the Kiwis.  They get it, and are aggressively forging partnerships with education ministries, universities and research organizations. They know that the inherent trust and respect that develops through the process of generating and sharing knowledge will lead to improved economic, trade and industrial linkages.

So, do we stand back and watch another opportunity pass us by? Do we focus only on the Chinas and Indias where asymmetry ensures that we will never be a significant player? Do we turn our heads inward and debate our internal differences?

 Or do we strategically deliver what a big market out there would like to transact with us?

What are your thoughts?

  Coming in Part 2 - some ideas as to how and where we can develop our knowledge-based influence and opportunities.

by...
Grant Thomas
Vice-president, Precarn Incorporated

We are often asked what underpins the success of Precarn's programs.  The evidence suggests that the key success factors are built into our collaborative R&D model. While the model has been targeted on innovators in the robotics and intelligent systems space, it will apply to any sector and any company wishing to capitalize on innovation:  

1) Use the best research talent you can find!
World class research and new and different perspectives generate innovative solutions.  Canadian universities are a rich source of truly bright people, eager to solve real problems.  Flexible and off-payroll, you are able to engage on-demand, just-in-time specialist research support for different aspects of a problem.  

2) Validate, with your Market!
Engage your potential customers or end users in your research. Continuous customer validation ensures commercial success.  A first customer, with a need, involved in the early stage research, dramatically reduces risk.  

3) Maintain a living business plan!
Start your business planning when you start your research.  The plan will adjust with new intelligence as you move toward commercialization only if you ensure that you are continuously revisiting the basic business assumptions that motivated the research in the first place. If your research changes course, and it likely will, an up to date business plan will be your decision support guide.  

4) Collaborate!
Even our large corporations realize they can't do it all.  And small companies never have all the expertise or resources to innovate and bring new product to market. Coopetition is the new name of the game.  And the Precarn model has been helping Canadian companies, large and small, bring innovation to market for 20 years.

Your opinion?

• For our funded projects, what has been your experience with the Precarn Model?
• For entrepreneurs in general, what have you found to be the keys to success taking innovation to market?

by...
Grant Thomas
Vice-president, Precarn Incorporated

The title of my graduate thesis was the "Studies of Middle and Small molecules in Human Uremia: Correlations to Clinical Complications and their Inhibitory Effect on the Maturation of Erythroid Colonies in vitro". While using this language was perfectly valid when communicating with the roughly 20 researchers in the world working in the same field of research, it was totally incomprehensible to anyone else especially those that controlled the purse strings for research funding. Even for my friends, who were bright researchers in their own right but in different fields of study, it was like I was speaking in some ancient language.

Some thirty-odd years later, much of it after I crossed over to the darkside (aka industry) as some of my fellow researchers tease me, it seems scientists are still being accused of gobbledygook. In an article in November, Editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy for the journal Science is warning that he will rewrite articles on behalf of authors [read the article here]. It appears the problem has become wide spread. The catch is while scientists once wrote in plain English (anyone can read Darwin), they don't today. The writing has become more and more technical, and only a few scientists in a particular niche can understand any given article.

So how do I describe my research work of thirty years ago today... To anyone that asks I say, "I was searching for the stuff in the blood of people suffering with kidney failure, and hence the material that doesn't get filtered out, that kills or slows down the growth of red blood cells."  It doesn't sound as majestic but just about anyone can understand.  While it is low on  multi-syllabic  terms, it actually tells the listener more.

In my opinion, the communication skills of researchers haven't declined, we have just lost sight of who our ultimate audience is.

What is your opinion?

• Is it important that researchers and scientists communicate well to lay readers?
• If it is important then what is the best way to inject a practice of more comprehensible writing?

by...
Gary Gudbranson
Director, Marketing & Communciations, Precarn Incorporated

Each Precarn Scholar is required to attend the annual Precarn conference and present a poster of their work. Last year, the Precarn Conference was held in conjunction with AI, GI, VI and CRV’s annual conferences, and students were offered the choice of either presenting a poster at IS2007 or at one of the other conferences. Since some of the other conferences are peer-reviewed, acceptance of a paper or poster at those conferences is better for the student’s CV and is, therefore, acceptable to Precarn. This year we continue our realtionship with the these academic conferences so the Precarn Scholars will again be offered this option.

In my opinion the posters and presentations have always been of the highest quality and a must see at the conference. Our philospohy has always been that having students present their work to their peers and to the larger academic community is a good thing. It encourages new ideas, the sharing of views and information, and generally lets students know that they are part of larger, yet common community.  

The question I ask is "Is requiring students to present a poster of their graduate work at the annual Precarn Conference the right idea?"

In the distant past, Precarn required students to submit reports on their work instead. However, the prevaling thought that this was not as effective as presenting a poster at the conference for encouraging the exchange of ideas and information. Was this the right decision? Is it right to have the students do anything for their scholarships?

ASIDE:  Make sure that when you come to the conference May 27-30, 2008 in Windsor, Ontario that you visit all the student posters, those of the Precarn Scholars and those presenting within the AI 2008, GI 2008 and CRV 2008 conferences. For information on this year’s conference check out the web site at www.aigicrvis.ca.  

by...
Rick Schwartzburg
Senior Manager, Academic Partnerships, Precarn

In Part 1 of this blog I explained how Precarn thought it would be interesting to solicit the opinions and observations of those that have been directly involved in one of our projects, by asking them what works and what doesn’t as it pertains to collaborative research. We then invited these participants from Industry, Academia, and a co-funding partner in our Alliance Program to speak at our annual conference this year and present their opinions based on their first-hand experience. Each was asked for their input in three different areas; project and partners, process, and people.

Last week we presented what works, and this week we present what doesn’t:

Project and Partners

• An Industry partner looking for a funding source for company operations
• Being impatient. Research is a risky business and does not always go the way we would like it to go
• Forgetting the lessons learned in other projects (do a post-mortem at the end of each project).

Process

• Research team looking for funding to support an existing research product
• Commercialization as a side effect
• Ignoring the administrative requirements, for example, Academic institutions and Professors do not track the hours spent on the project, however, this is required by the funding institutions
• Small company has huge overhead in managing multiple entities (work cultures)
• Until preliminary results are seen, it’s hard to think of commercialization
• Not sharing intermediate results to the team

People

• Over expectation from the research team
• Hiding problems from your partners
• Getting discouraged. Research partnerships require a lot of (non-technical) effort so go in with your eyes open

If you have a project, or contemplating a project, and have questions about how to make your project a success, Precarn would be pleased to help. Contact Derek Best.

If you have a tip, whether it be a do or a don't,  for a successful project, please tell us by entering a comment below...

 

by...
Derek Best
Director, Research Programs, Precarn Incorporated

Over the course of managing a program of collaborative research, the question has arisen on different occasions from potential applicants to our program as to what constitutes a good Precarn research project. And while I have my own opinions based on observation, we thought it would be interesting to solicit the opinions and observations of those that have been directly involved in a project.

We invited the participants from Industry, Academia, and a co-funding partner in our Alliance Program to speak at our annual conference in 2007 and present their opinions based on first-hand experience. Each was asked for their input on what works and what doesn’t in three different areas; project and partners, process, and people.

The following is a summary of their feedback on what works:

Project and Partners

• Joint statement of objectives and expected results from the partnership
• The project must be stimulating
• Perceived complementarities between partners
• Some compatible values between organizations
• Understanding and respect of each other’s perspective
• Industry partner’s active participation in the collaboration (cash and in-kind)
• Project must be aligned with industry partner’s main line of business
• Requires a stable Industrial Lead Participant to support the research and commercialization
• A thorough knowledge of the market need
• A solid understanding of the industry partners problem
• Knowing the boundaries of over commitment
• An engaged end user customer
• Lead time for commercialization

Process

• A clear understanding of roles and responsibilities
• A project that is tightly coupled on target; loosely coupled on activities
• Allow people to focus on the things they do well and only bring them together sporadically
• Consider all of the stakeholders’ perspectives
• Use an agile incremental process; keep options open
• Think in other boxes; use analogy
• Effective network or partnership animation and coordination
• Resources must be available
• Equitable sharing of success’ impact amongst the partners
• An understanding of the academic world by non-academic partners
• Regular meetings
• Start thinking about IP and BIP right at project inception
• Upfront IP agreement
• Identify new IP as soon as it is clear that something great is coming out of the research
• The more partners, the more complex IP discussions are
• Keep looking for technology receptors during the course of the project
• Realize that some neat ideas may lead to unexpected products
• Seek advice from organizations that are used to dealing with technology
• Do not neglect the effort requested for timely reporting and project planning.
• Circulate accurate and honest technical information on problems
• The project plan drives the program
• Weekly, Monthly and Quarterly meetings: Professors and students must attend
• Intermediate research results shared with the team
• Commercialization focus from the project start
• Research investment risk mitigation
• Accelerated research

People

• A supportive sponsor
• Champions able to initiate positive and visible actions
• Personal involvement and regular participation
• Balance in the share of power
• Openness to constructive critics
• Think and speak as partners
• Academic and Industrial partners need to learn to know each other through small short-term projects before engaging into large-scale / large budget endeavors
• Involve graduate students in the research
• Academic researcher must realize that a research partnership does not operate as conventional publication-oriented research, and that the rewards are different
• Involve professional research staff in the research as their participation is essential for system integration and day-to-day interaction with project partners
• Project managers should keep in touch with the research team in order to assess the level of project progress
• Students should co-locate with industry professionals if possible perform thesis research in industrial setting
• Students thesis co-supervised by industry employees
• Co-author publications with an Industry professional for a higher acceptance rate
• Hiring students when they complete degrees as they have trained skills ready for implementation

If you have a project, or contemplating a project, and have questions about how to make your project a success, Precarn would be pleased to help. Contact Derek Best.

If you have a tip for a successful project, please tell us by entering a comment below...

 

by...
Derek Best
Director, Research Programs, Precarn Incorporated

Back in 2002 IRIS was conducting its cross-Canada consultations in preparation for its Phase 3 mid-term review. One of the messages that came out strong and clear was that universities were having a hard time hanging onto good graduate students. The question asked was if there was any way that Precarn or IRIS could help with this. It was then that the Precarn Scholars Program was created. Since its inception, over 500 students have received support through the Precarn Scholars Program. This year, 52 students shared almost $400,000 in support.  

So the question is: Has the program worked?

As a professor, have you found that the support of the Precarn Scholars Program has helped you to retain graduate students that you otherwise might have lost?

As a graduate student, has the Scholars Program helped you to stay in Canada and to continue your studies?

These are important questions especially when it comes to determining if such a program should continue.

Rick Schwartzburg
Senior Manager, Academic Partnerships, Precarn

 My question to you is...
           "With regard to developing research and technology partnerships in China, are intellectual property concerns over-stated?" 

I have been involved in fostering and supporting research partnerships in China for a number of years and the most commonly recurring issue that has been raised is protection of intellectual property(IP).  Notwithstanding all the warnings about theft of IP, it appears that just about every major international technology-based company is active in China, and those that aren't are questioned as to their future by being absent from China. 

Are all these companies just accepting such technology losses as the cost of doing business in this market; are they advancing their technology faster than it can be stolen; have they developed coping strategies to minimize technology losses, or, is it really not that big a factor in their business relationships in China, contrary to popular wisdom?

What has been your experience?...

Stuart Wilson
Vice-President, Operations, ISTPCanada

An article [1] in Business World some years back had the following headline:

Innovation = Economic Growth

There was nothing surprising about it, rather the opposite. Innovative economies are creating more intellectual capital, jobs, growth, and wealth than less innovative economies. The statement is by now universally accepted. Western Economic Diversification Canada writes in a recent report that "innovation has become the major driving force in economic growth and social development" [2]. OECD claims that innovation is now the main driver of economic progress and well-being [3]. The organisation also believes innovation to be an important factor in meeting global challenges in domains such as the environment and health. A report from the Congressional Research Service to the U.S. Congress writes that "It is widely accepted that technological progress is responsible for up to one-half of the growth of the U.S. economy" [4]. The Boston Consulting Group has produced numbers showing that innovation indeed is the largest contributor to economic growth, as can be seen in the following graph from The Economist [5] who recently, devoted a special report [8] on the issue.

In simple terms, in order to avoid an economic decline, Canada needs to be more innovative than its competitors. Increased globalization, communication and technology availability are increasing competition and shortening product cycles and time to market. This is not only increasing the need for innovation, but the need to innovate at an increasing rate. For instance, since the life cycle of consumer goods in the United States fell by half from 1992 to 2002, companies needed to innovate twice as fast just to keep up [6].

Competition is not the only reason for the need to innovate. Internal factors include Canada's worrisome demographical development. It is estimated that in 2020 there will be 40 retirees for every 100 working-age persons, up from 21 for every 100 in 2003 [7]. Looking at this factor alone, we see that we need to dramatically increase our productivity per working-age person, and again, just to keep up.

Innovation has a negative or destructive effect as new developments clear away or change old forms and practices. Organizations that do not innovate effectively may be destroyed by those that do. On a larger scale, economies (like Canada) that do not innovate effectively will decline. The headline of the Business World article could just as well been

Insufficient Innovation = Economic Decline

Overall, this means that it hardly matters where you are and what you do, the policies that drive innovation will affect you and are likely to affect you deeply. To be blunt, the quality of the care you will receive when you retire is highly dependent on Canada's ability to create economic growth through innovation.

On this background, it is very concerning that a report in June from the Conference Board of Canada, How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada [7] gives Canada a "D" in innovation. The authors write that Canada is increasingly lagging behind its international peers, and that "Above all, we show that this country is doing dismally in the critically important area of innovation".

Clearly, the innovation business should be everybody's business.

Morten Irgens
President & CTO, Actenum Corporation
Morten is a member of the Precarn Board of Directors

References
[1] "Innovation = Economic Growth", Business Week, May 28 2004;
[2] "Western Economic Diversification Canada: A Catalyst for Innovation in Western Canada, March 2003
[3] "Innovation And Growth, Rationale For An Innovation Strategy", Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development, May 2007.
[4] "Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy, Brief for US Congress, Wendy H. Schacht, The National Council for Science and the Environment, August 2007.
[5] "Special Report on Innovation", the Economist, Oct 11th 2007
[6] Gil Cloyd, Chief Technology Officer at Procter Gamble, as reported in Revving up; How globalisation and information technology are spurring faster innovation, Special Report on Innovation, the Economist, Oct 11th 2007.
[7] "The Demographic Time Bomb: Mitigating the Effects Of Demographic Change In Canada, Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, June 2006. Also in PDF format.
[8] "How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada", Conference Board of Canada.

 

 

 

What do you think?  Are we going the right direction?

I have been receiving some very positive feedback to the changes we have been making to the Precarn website over the last few months and feeling a bit smug as I knew the best was yet to come...

Well today is the day! We have launched the first of many new online services including  a repository of information about the intelligent systems industry, and the flagship, a matching service called the intelliFINDER service.  I invite you to take a peek at these services and other services at Your R&D Network above.  The online services will be supported by people - our solid staff and through partnerships with industry leaders like Reid Eddison.

There is a philosophy behind the services we have launched today and will be launching in the future:

• Support the Precarn Collaborative Model though partnering services
• Create opportunities for dialog in the intelligent systems industry
• Make Precarn the one stop for information about the IS industry:  funding/investment, mentoring, partnering, commercialization

The key is the participation and contribution within the Precarn Network.  Phrases like "Many hands make light work"; and , "Together we are smarter" -- give some idea of what we are trying to accomplish. The bottom-line is this is your network. It is made stronger, wider and more valuable with your participation.  

Have a favourite website? -- Discovered a valuable trick of the trade... -- Found a great industry study -- Willing to be a mentor -- Looking for a partner -- Have a perspective on R&D and Commercialization -- Don't be shy!  Please contribute, share, partner, mentor...

There are more services in various stages of development.  Stay tuned - stay involved!  If you have ideas on how Precarn can improve or add value, we are all ears!

Cheers,
Gary Gudbranson
Precarn Webmaster

 

<p>It is the gift time! Oh yes, <b>Christmas</b> is coming. Dear friends, have you begun to prepare the Christmas gifts? Many of you must have formulated the gift plans. Some may decide to buy delicate presents, which can save time, while another group of people prefer to<b> make DIY Christmas gifts</b>. Indeed, a DIY Christmas gift seems to be a greater surprise.</p><p>DIY Christmas gifts show our warm care as well as sincere wishes to the receivers, and impress them more. However, thinking of great <b>Christmas gift ideas</b> for so many receivers is a little complex indeed. </p><p><b>The following are some Christmas gift ideas you can take as reference:</b></p><p>For your dear mom, aunt, sister, grandma, etc, the gift can be something like dress ornament, cute handbag; grandpa, dad, uncle, etc probably like things such as beautiful photo frame, and hand-stove; as for bosom friends, you can send some little memorable gifts to show your care. It is more meaningful; the gifts that can show your warm care are good choice for lovers; for workmates, classmates , etc , some marvelous Christmas cards are good choice to express your wishes; …. There are so many choices, and you can also get inspiration from the following resources: <a href=\"http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/11/13/a-do-it-yourself-christmas-34-great-gifts-you-can-make-yourself/\">34 Great Gifts You Can Make Yourself</a>, and <a href=\"http://www.craftbits.com/\">ideas for DIY Christmas gift</a>. </p><p align=center><img src=\"http://www.acoolsoft.com/images/blog/christmas-santa-claus.gif\" alt=\"diy christmas gift\" width=\"450\" height=\"338\" /> &lt;Great Christmas gifts sent by Santa Claus&gt;</p><p><br />Is it still a headache to think out several ideas? To save you out of this hard work, here comes a Christmas gift idea that is wonderful for different receivers –<b> make a DIY DVD photo album or Christmas DVD card with PowerPoint</b>. You can design your own card and photo album showing the happy moment with family, friends, etc. Also DVD can be played by people with different ages and can be stored for a long time. Check the detail ways to <a href=\"http://www.acoolsoft.com/articles/How-to-Make-a-Newborn-Baby-DVD-Slideshow-with-Music.html#176\">make a DVD slideshow</a> with easy-to-use MS PowerPoint and <a href=\"http://www.acoolsoft.com/powerpoint-to-dvd-overview.html#176\">PowerPoint to DVD converter</a>. </p><p>Apart from the wonderful Christmas ideas, there are also more things to consider. Here will introduce <b>some tips to make a DIY Christmas gift</b>. </p><p><b>1.List the receiver and the proper gift. </b>Among your family members and acquaintances, you need to decide whom you will send a DIY gift. It is better to devote the time and attention to the key gifts. Also a plan should be made to make the ideal gifts clear for the receiver. </p><p><b>2.Make the budget clear.</b> The whole plan to make a DIY Christmas gift should come wisely. With a comparatively clear budget, you will feel more relaxed and everything will follow your plan. It is not sensible to make yourself anxious because of the gifts’ cost. </p><p><b>3. Keep it a secret. </b>When the preparation is done, keep it a secret to the receiver. People always like some happy surprises. Therefore, when you show them the gifts, you will gain a wonderful reward – the receivers’ touching smile.</p><p><b>4.Think of the creative way to send the Christmas gift out.</b> Innovative gift interests the receiver, while the novel ways to send the gift out make the gift delivery this year perfect. Surprise plus innovation is equal to the satisfactoriness and excitement of the receivers. </p><p><b>Make a DIY Christmas gift,</b> and you will be the great Santa Claus saying “Merry Christmas, dear family and friends!”</p>

Nowadays, e-learning gets more and more popular and becomes an important and efficient way for educating and training. Online testing is one important process of e-learning. Teachers, trainers, human resource directors, etc have shown their great interests on making quizzes with quiz maker software like QuizCreator (http://www.quiz-creator.com/). Users can make quiz easily with this tool; nevertheless, some users may get confused about how to use the function called Blank Page. Thus, in the following text we will take QuizCreator as an example to suggest you some uses of \"Blank Page\" the interesting and practical function.Blank Page is specially designed to works as a complementary tool to the 9 question styles that makes your quiz more wonderful and efficient. We can use it in many aspects. Let\'s explore the uses together:1. Show an integrated quiz in different partsIf you are a teacher or HR, for oft, you may need to check the quiz