Evidence of meeting #31 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was innovation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'd like to follow up on Dr. Corbin's point about the metrics, because it's absolutely right.
One of the things government can do is to help us to take more nuanced measurements. Simply counting outputs, such as patents, cross-border trademarks, or patents per population, is not very helpful. We perform very poorly because we don't do those things, but we don't actually know what we do instead. It's entirely possible that Canadian innovators prefer trade secrets to patents. So all of that innovation that's facilitated by trade secrecy would not be captured in the data. We don't know that.
Far more important than the patent, which is merely an artifact of an invention, is the process by which the patent arose. Who are the inventors on the patent? Which countries are they from? What is the relationship between the scientific literature coming out of universities and the disclosure in the patented invention? How is that patent licensed to other actors? What is the revenue stream? What is its impact in the market?
Dr. Corbin can do some very sophisticated research on these kinds of market questions, but we currently don't calculate this kind of.... We don't have this data. We don't know. A better understanding of those kinds of questions will help us to really tailor our policies to help the sectors that we want to help most.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
What sorts of programs and steps, then, can we take to engage SMEs in the IP system, and do we need to communicate it on a much better level?
9:45 a.m.
Managing Partner and Chief Executive Officer, CorbinPartners Inc., As an Individual
Mr. Regan has said that communicating the bill probably isn't going to happen, because it's boring. You'd think it's boring, the language, so let's find a way to do it. Let's make it in the public conscience.
Oversimplyfying, leadership through measurement--a measurement directorate by the government that would set the standard for Dr. de Beer's comments is something practical that government can do.
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's the CIPC's recommendation for an IP czar. That's precisely what a czar would do.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you. And thanks to everyone for coming.
My head's practically exploding with questions right now, whether I want to go on with digital music and digital rights holders, how we ensure that their IP is properly remunerated, or do I go off on knowledge-based economy or on the issue of controls, or for an elaboration on evidence-based policy-making reviews, or the lack of IP literacy.... I mean, the directions are endless here.
However, what I've heard from everybody is that we really do need to find that nice balance, that sweet spot in IP that will offer the appropriate types of protections while not stifling any of the innovation.
Out of all of those different options, last week one of the witnesses who came forward mentioned that when a company is sold, let's say, to an American company and they have an IP, that would be subject to review under the Investment Canada Act, but if it's only the IP being sold that's not subject to review. Is this an area that any of you think may be worthy of looking at further?
I'll quickly go across for an answer.
9:50 a.m.
Co-chair, Canadian Intellectual Property Council
I'm not sure what the answer to that would be. I didn't know that was the case.
9:50 a.m.
Managing Partner and Chief Executive Officer, CorbinPartners Inc., As an Individual
It's an interesting question. Nortel was bankrupt and sold its intellectual property for $8 million, which makes the point about the value. It's an interesting strategy. I think not everyone has cottoned on to it yet.
9:50 a.m.
President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
I think it's something that could be looked at, but you'd have to appreciate that if there are restrictions on the sale of a piece of property, the value of the property is diminished simply by virtue of the restrictions.
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's an excellent point. Some countries have done something slightly different. Japan and Korea specifically have created sovereign funds, where the government will acquire strategic patent portfolios that they recognize are of interest to their domestic industries, including, for example, SMEs. They will create a pool that helps their SMEs and entrepreneurs access those technologies, like a sovereign investment fund except in patents. So had the Nortel case happened in Japan or Korea, that would have been exactly the type of environment where one of these funds would have come in or could have come in to protect the intellectual property and to keep the investment in Canada.
The issue is extremely important, because, unlike other assets, if the intellectual property leaves the country there are no jobs necessarily remaining behind. If you sell potash, somebody still has to pull it out of the ground. But if you sell Nortel's patent carcass, which actually went for $4.5 billion--6,000 patents, $4.5 billion, crazy, but a unique market—then nothing's left. But if the government is to invest public funding into companies, SMEs especially, to help them build up patent portfolios, we need to make sure that their exit strategy or bankruptcy plan will not see those portfolios leaving the country. That is very important.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
To quickly follow up on that, let's say the Nortel situation had happened in Japan in the circumstances you're speaking of. Would that have brought all that intellectual property out into the public domain within Japan so that all their businesses would have access to it?
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No. The intellectual property would still be protected, but what would happen is it would be managed and controlled by an entity with domestic interests in mind. I'm not saying that would have happened in Japan, but Japan and Korea and the EU are examples of jurisdictions that have started to think creatively like this.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, and that's an important point. Open source does not abandon IP protection. You acquire IP protection, and then creatively license it.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
I've been a big user of open source software in all the various IT endeavours I've used. You can either choose to pay for the software or pay to further develop it and make it what you need.
How much time do I have left?
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
In 26 seconds, why do we need an evidence-based policy review?
9:55 a.m.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Because the issues are so complicated, we have to move beyond banal rhetoric and just saying we need a strong IP policy. Everybody agrees. The question is how. That's what an independent evidence-based review will accomplish.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much.
Now we'll move on to Mr. McColeman, for five minutes.