Industry Committee on Oct. 4th, 2012

[George Dixon]

I'm not particularly in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach, because if that happened, I suspect the approach that's used at the University of Waterloo, which is inventor owned, would not be the one that was picked.

Each university develops in a different climate. Waterloo was founded in 1957 by Gerry Hagey and Ira Needles, who were senior executives at B. F. Goodrich. The university was put together with a very specific mandate to train engineers, and grew into a comprehensive university from there. I suspect that those policies of IP ownership by the individual came out of the philosophy of the original individuals who were on the board of governors of the university.

It's a method that's not tightly controlled. There's one thing I'm very worried about. I'm an ecologist, and if you look at how things work, I'm very much into diversity and, if you have a diversity of approaches, it tends to work better.

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

Just to stay along the same line here, if there were a George Dixon university—and I'm sure there will be one day—what would you change?

[George Dixon]

If somebody names a university after me, then I'll really know I'm a has-been.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[George Dixon]

I would stick with the policy of inventor owned, because it's not just about the IP, it's who you attract to the university. We think the individuals we attract to the University of Waterloo, both the undergraduates and our faculty members, go there because they have an entrepreneurial bent by nature. The fact that they can own their own IP is a huge drawing power to attract the very best coming forward.

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

All right.

[George Dixon]

It's about who you can attract. It's much easier to build a culture of innovation if you have the right people up front.

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

For my last question I'm going to go to your third observation, the one about risk tolerance in the private sector. What would you change? What would you do to address that issue? You said you would be willing to elaborate on some things. This one is definitely of interest to the committee, so I would like you to elaborate on it, if you could.

[George Dixon]

The largest single organization that purchases goods and services in Canada is probably the federal government. Looking at some of these new technologies and the adaptation of new technologies in the purchases by government would be an area where you could probably make a significant impact.

I remember reading a study, and I apologize because I can't remember where it came from. It looked at the acceptance of technology in the private sector in the United States versus Canada. This was mostly information technology that would be useful business tools to move the agenda forward. The climate for acceptance was much greater in the United States.

How do you encourage industry to accept new technologies and risks? I don't know enough about government and the tax structure in order to figure out how to do that, but that would be something I would probably incent.

I will give you one very brief example. There was a company that was formed at the University of Waterloo that treated groundwater. I won't get into how they did it. It was innovative technology. That technology was in place in 80 sites outside Canada before it was in place anywhere in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much. You finished right at seven minutes. It's unbelievable.

Mr. Regan for seven minutes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That will be unbelievable.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Siebrasse didn't hear that. Mike Wallace said, “That will be unbelievable.” I only will get seven minutes, I'm sure.

I first wanted to mention in regard to your comment about George Dixon university that I wish you the best of luck. I will look forward to that. The other possibility is what we had at Dalhousie University, George Munro day, a holiday. Mind you, he gave the equivalent of $8 million a long time ago to Dalhousie University. I don't know if you're going to manage that with your university or with the University of Waterloo. I will watch with interest to see.

Let me ask you, Mr. Dixon, whether you feel the patent system should be the same for all industries. Should it be the same, for instance, for pharmaceuticals as it is for information technology, or should we have different regimes?

[George Dixon]

You're getting into an area on which I'm not really the one to opine. I am not a patent lawyer. I'm an environmental toxicologist. I study the toxic impacts of chemicals. What I do is manage this initiative. For the actual nuts and bolts of different patenting policies I'm not the person to comment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay. What I'm getting at is whether there should be different regimes for different kinds of activities.

I'll turn to Professor Siebrasse. It's nice to see you again, sir. What is your thought on that?

[Prof. Norman Siebrasse]

As I said in my remarks, it is very clear that industries experience the patent system differently. It has different importance in different industries. In that respect, yes, it would be a good idea in principle to tailor the patent regime and many aspects, potentially from patent term to breadth of patent and so on, to different industries.

The tough question is whether we can do that in any kind of coherent and sensible fashion. At this point, my suspicions are that yes, potentially with patent term, which is a fairly discrete kind of variable. In terms of tailoring other aspects, such as patent breadth, that's something that's talked about a lot academically, and I think it would be very difficult to do. It's a good idea in principle, but it would be difficult to carry out.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You talked about the patenting of business methods and the litigation going on in that regard. What, in your view, ought to be the legal framework for that? Are there best practices in other countries you would point to?

[Prof. Norman Siebrasse]

Let me start with the second part of your question regarding whether there are best practices in other countries. Unfortunately, I would say the answer is no.

The U.S. recently had very high-profile litigation over the same issue. Their law is just as confused as ours is. We have a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision that complains about how confused the law is. The U.S. is very much in the same boat we are, except they're having more actual litigation. Europe has specific exclusions for certain things, for business methods in particular, but the way their legislation is drafted, it has proven to be unclear what they actually mean by it. It's something we can look to, but I wouldn't call it a best practice.

In terms of what should the framework be, are you asking me whether or not in my view business methods should be patentable?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes.

[Prof. Norman Siebrasse]

Well, that's a question that I hate to answer because the answer is that I don't know. If you really pressed me, I think I would say probably not. My feeling is they're probably not good for innovation, but it really is a feeling and this is a question that, if you gave me more time to answer, I'd go out and consult stakeholders, the financial industry, banks. The financial industry would be heavily affected by business method patents, and that's why, mind you, it's a job for the legislature.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So, would you require us to hire you and pay you to do that, or are you prepared to do that on your own?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'll leave that as a rhetorical question.

Do you have any views on how you might change the law regarding pharmaceutical patents?

[Prof. Norman Siebrasse]

Regarding pharmaceutical patents, there are many aspects of the law that could be changed. We've heard a fair bit already about the details of the notice of compliance system, that is, the patent linkage system. I think patent term extension is a good idea. I acknowledge there is uncertainty in this, but I would be in favour of it.

The linkage system, the notice of compliance system, probably is due for review. We could look at it and pick out things that don't make sense, but it is necessary to look at the system as a whole. There are a bunch of compromises in that system. It's not a matter of saying that the innovator companies are very upset about not having a right of appeal. It seems unfair, but they do get other advantages. Without getting into details, I would say we could make some improvements by an overall review of the system.

I mentioned some of these details of doctrine that I'm hoping the courts will straighten out. They might be addressed. I would echo Ms. Garland's comments that there are a number of technical doctrines, such as the double patenting doctrine, loss of patent rights, and failure to pay fees on time, that could be addressed relatively easily, and I hope in an uncontroversial way.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Being the only witness we have who's not from Ontario, or central Canada at least, you may have a strong knowledge of the research resulting in patents or patent-type activity in Atlantic Canada. One of the things we've heard from some people has to do with the lack of patent officers outside major centres. What are your thoughts on that, and what would you do about it?