Skip to content

Bright ideas kept in dark

Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, right? Wrong.Two Canadians named James Woodward (a medical electrician) and Mark Evans (a hotelkeeper) filed a patent on their light July 24, 1874. In 1876 a U.S. patent was obtained; in 1879 Edison completely bought out the U.S. patent and in 1885 bought half of the Canadian one.
RichardsHarleyMugMay23jer
Array

Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, right? Wrong.

Two Canadians named James Woodward (a medical electrician) and Mark Evans (a hotelkeeper) filed a patent on their light July 24, 1874. In 1876 a U.S. patent was obtained; in 1879 Edison completely bought out the U.S. patent and in 1885 bought half of the Canadian one.

The rest is history. Edison ‘invented’ the light bulb. He owned the idea.

According to the recently released report by the Canadian International Council entitled Rights and Rents: Why Canada must harness its intellectual property resources, the situation in Canada has not changed much.

Canada lags far behind in protecting and bringing intellectual innovation to market in a way that will create long-term profits.

To discuss the findings of the report, the report’s author, journalist Karen Mazurkewich was joined by Robert A. Schulz, Professor of Strategic Management at the U of C’s Haskayne School of Business, and Douglas James, Partner in EnergyFutures Network.

The notion that intellectual property has value seems to not have much ‘currency’ in Canada.

Intellectual property can be summarized as a unique idea, concept, invention or creation that has commercial value. Yet in Canada “the creativity and ingenuity that are critical to invention have not been recognized as valuable commodities” according to the report. Intellectual property ownership (i.e. holding a patent or copyright) allows the holder to profit from the sale of the idea or technology.

Venture capitalists are the ones who usually put up some start-up money for fresh ideas, but in Canada, some 58 per cent of new starts between 2006 and 2010 ended up under foreign ownership. Rather than this country profiting on an ongoing basis from our own inventions, we end up paying license fees to those who acquire the ownership of our ideas.

In cash terms, the report estimates that some $4.5 billion U.S. represented Canada’s 2009 total net loss in tech transfer payments alone.

It was shocking to hear that most Canadian universities stubbornly demand significant upfront license fees (having already received substantial public tax dollar support) and then lose the deal because they are too inflexible. That means valuable ideas founder on the shelf; or someone else beats the inventor to market.

The panel believes Calgary is an ideal place for oil, gas and oil sands IP innovation. In Calgary’s downtown core there is a cluster of corporations with a vested interest in innovation. Universities are developing leading edge technologies and there are a significant number of venture capitalists in Calgary who are eminently approachable.

Rights and Rents is online at http://www.onlinecic.org/ . It’s a highly readable document and it lists a number of recommendations. The federal government should overhaul the patent process. A small business-friendly IP strategy should be established. Working with industry and academia, a more collaborative structure and means to create strategic alliances must be set up.

Most important, a better data base of “prior art” and better forms of legal protection for our bright ideas on the world stage must be established. Bright ideas deserve better protection and promotion.

Michelle Stirling-Anosh is a freelance writer in Ponoka.