Industry Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2012

[Brigitte Nolet]

I would agree. Our companies are investing in some of these consortia. One interesting example is the Centre for Drug Research and Development, CDRD, in British Columbia. There are a number of companies involved, and that's exactly what we're looking at. We're investing in this centre. They are looking at a number of different therapeutic areas, and there is a real partnership in terms of what type of science is being developed.

There's also the B.C. personalized medicine initiative out of the University of British Columbia, and there are a number of companies that are working with this group. They're looking at how to help personalize and find diagnostic testing to match certain diseases so that we can be more certain as we go forward that certain therapies will be able to truly answer some of those questions, depending on the person's genome.

I agree that it's a really interesting way to go.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Good, and I have a comment to finish my time, because I know I'll be short on time here.

A number of our colleagues spent time this morning with about 50 Canadian university presidents over breakfast. There was a presentation from a young fellow named Kunal Gupta, who developed a company called Polar Mobile. The three things that he spoke about that were instrumental were the things that were brought up. Just to underscore what you said, one was talent, one was entrepreneurship—how he expanded his skill sets and the importance of co-op programs to him—and the other was a global, international focus.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Now it's on to Mr. Thibeault for five minutes.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, guests, for being here today.

I'm going to move very quickly. I am going to focus most of my questions to the gentleman from RIM.

All of us carry a BlackBerry or a smart phone of some sort. We are relying on this more and more. I know our last study at the industry committee was talking about e-commerce and the digital economy. We use this more and more for even things like health care.

For example, there is a great company in Sudbury, in my riding, called Carenet. You can actually get an email and see a video if your senior parent hasn't taken their medication yet. We're going to be relying on this technology more and more.

What we are hearing in the news is that one smart phone company is suing another smart phone company, which is suing another smart phone company, all over patents. Will these costly lawsuits have an impact on the cost of handsets and the price the consumers will have to pay in the long run?

[Morgan Elliott]

First, let me say you have a very illustrious committee with everyone carrying a BlackBerry. I am very impressed with that one.

We mentioned bad patent regimes earlier. Certainly the U.S. is the prime example of where companies are suing each other. It's more of a way of keeping products out. I can think of a decision in a case we lost in California, adjudicated by a jury that may have known nothing about patents, in which the company was awarded—it was overturned—eight dollars for every device we sold. This was going to be the payment we were going to have to give to the company. Absolutely, if you get the patent regime wrong, it does increase the price to consumers.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Great. Thanks.

I have a two-part question. Can you speak a little bit about patent trolls? Has this hindered RIM's ability to commercialize new technologies?

[Robert Guay]

Patent trolls are an interesting phenomenon.

Again, in line with the comments I made earlier, depending on the jurisdiction, depending on the IP regime you're dealing with, there will be a different set of constraints, a different set of rules. Companies such as patent trolls will often look at these rules to try to use them to their advantage. Canada, just like any other jurisdiction, has to be cognizant of that.

A strong IP regime is perfectly fine. It is something a lot of stakeholders look for, but it has to have the right checks and balances.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Do you see anything we can do here at Parliament to help eliminate patent trolls?

[Morgan Elliott]

There are certain companies that may take part in activities that give the impression that they are patent trolls. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not they are. In Canada the system, from that point of view, is good. We don't see the huge cases that we have in the U.S.

From a legislative point of view the answer is no, but from an administrative point of view, yes, there are a lot of things we could do.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Can you speak to the issue of corporate espionage, the theft of intellectual property by foreign entities? How is this going to impact the patent process? In what way can the government assist in protecting intellectual property from these types of threats?

[Morgan Elliott]

That's a tough question. It's incumbent upon every company to protect their own intellectual property and their own computer systems. People are starting to realize cybersecurity and cyberespionage are the new frontier in terms of the way some state governments are operating.

One way is education. In 2008 CIPO came out with a great study that said 80% of businesses knew what a patent was, but they didn't know what intellectual property was, nor did they think their business had any intellectual property. A lot of it is an education process, understanding that knowledge and the things you produce, not just hard goods, are valuable.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have 30 seconds.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

With that, Dr. Meulien, if we're doing comments and saying thanks for constituents, thanks for Genome for being involved at Science North in Sudbury. It's a great facility, and your involvement there is much appreciated.

I'll take that with my 30 seconds. Thank you very much.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thibeault.

I will advise the witnesses that we will not likely have time for any closing remarks. If there is anything desperate that you need to get out, you will need to try to squeeze it in with your answers to my colleagues.

We now move on to Mr. Lake for five minutes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pierre, I'm going to come back to you and continue the momentum here in terms of thank yous. Of course, you know I have a son with autism, and the scientists behind the autism genome project in Canada are among the world leaders in genetic research on autism.

I had a chance to visit Steve Scherer in Toronto, a second time that I've had the chance to tour his facility. The first time around we actually did it with my son and daughter and my whole family, but I had a chance a few weeks back to see him. It was pretty exciting, with them moving into a new building there soon, and it's exciting to hear about the phenomenal research that they're doing.

As it relates to the study that we're doing right now on IP, it seems to me that the application benefit of IP, dealing with a company like RIM, is very tangible—well, maybe not very tangible, but as tangible as IP can get in terms of understanding that benefit—but with something like what they're doing at the autism genome project, I think it's a little less tangible. Maybe you could speak to some of the practical application of IP with the work that Steve's doing. What does it look like, and how is the value of the IP recognized?

[Dr. Pierre Meulien]

That's a great question. Thank you.

In general, in genomics research there's a huge amount of data being created. There's a big case at the moment in the U.S. Supreme Court around the Myriad breast cancer gene that you might have heard about, and whatever way that's going to come down, the value of actually patenting a gene these days is very low. Most of it is in the public domain anyway, and more and more is going into the public domain. That's on one end of the spectrum, if you like.

The value, though, is going to be in the particular profile or genetic test or biomarker panel that you would like to put into a test that you or somebody will make and commercialize and sell. It's that value that needs to be protected with strong intellectual property, and that's being done in the genomics arena.

We have companies that have spun out of our projects. There is one looking at cancer gene panels for colorectal cancer. That's a commercialized product. It's available around the world, and the patenting was not on individual genes, but a panel of genes that was put together in a very innovative way.

I think we have the whole spectrum of activity, but toward the commercialization end, I think it's the specific use you're going to make of a specific panel that's based on your own innovation and your own discovery that's going to be of great value.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you.

Chris, I'm going to come to you again now.

Morgan mentioned education, and I think you said you've been doing what you've been doing or TEC Edmonton's been doing for six years. It seems to me that the real challenge here is that the people who are inventing and innovating, the researchers at the university level, historically have not always been entrepreneurs. They've not always been aware of the business aspects of what they're doing, the future business opportunities. They're very focused on the research they're doing and are not necessarily experts on the business side.

To what extent is that changing because of the things that organizations like Communitech or TEC Edmonton are doing?

[Chris Lumb]

I think they're having a huge impact.

Communitech is a good example. MaRS is a good example. TEC Edmonton is a good example. Innovate Calgary in Calgary is a good example.

They're making a difference, but keep in mind, too, that universities have many researchers doing research that is not and probably never will be commercializable, so the percentage of researchers at any given university who commercialize technology will always be low.

However, of the technologies being worked on that have the potential for being commercialized, I think there is much more awareness today than there has been, and I would say it's partially due to the organizations like the one I run.

That's only one reason. I think there are a number of other things. As I said, the awareness of senior administration at universities makes a big difference. The existence of infrastructure organizations like Genome Canada, CMC Microsystems, and Canarie make a difference because they provide shared infrastructure. As well, some of the funding that goes to them now is coming with some pressure from the federal government to focus on commercial outcomes, so that helps to make a difference.

There are a number of things coming together that are creating a stronger focus on commercialization than there was, say, 10 years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Members, we're now going into our third and optional round of five-minute questions. That means there will be two Conservative, one NDP, and one Liberal, if you so choose.

I have two names on here right now, and the first is Mr. Braid, for five minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Elliot, you referred to this phenomenon of companies acquiring patents for defensive purposes.

What's underneath that phenomenon? What's causing it? Is there anything that can be done about it? Is there any way for companies to say uncle, or is this just a natural evolution of the competitive nature of your business?

[Morgan Elliott]

That's a nice easy question.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Morgan Elliott]

I'll take my cue from the chair and first of all thank you personally, in this public forum, for your ongoing support of Research In Motion. I know you're a great advocate for us, and we really appreciate it.

To that extent, too, Mr. Regan, I know you speak up for us, on our behalf, and we really do appreciate it.

You know, the members, and even the men and women of the public service, have been truly outstanding for us, in international affairs and Industry Canada, as we take on the world in our industry, so thank you very much for that. You've always been behind us.

Hopefully we'll give you reasons to be excited and to be behind us even more on November 7, when there's an event at the Château Laurier at which you can get a sneak peek at the BlackBerry 10. Certainly we hope you'll be able to attend.

I apologize for that commercial, but....

Is it a natural evolution? I don't know. It's too hard to say right now. Obviously the pendulum has swung quite far. You see all sorts of crazy class action lawsuits in the U.S., and it really is a barrier or a tool that people are using in the competitive nature of our business world. It does have an impact on the cost to consumers. It's all a matter of finding that balance, of being able to protect all of the R and D spending you do, and at the same time not making it anti-competitive—if that makes sense.

The short answer is that it's too soon to tell.