1 / 20

Ideas vs Intellectual Property: The Carleton University Technology Transfer Approach:

Ideas vs Intellectual Property: The Carleton University Technology Transfer Approach: “ Building True Innovation Capacity Based on Talent, Knowledge and Ideas ”. Building Innovation Capacity – What Foundation?. IP-centric. Idea-centric. Narrow focus Closed/proprietary

aloha
Download Presentation

Ideas vs Intellectual Property: The Carleton University Technology Transfer Approach:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ideas vs Intellectual Property: The Carleton University Technology Transfer Approach: “Building True Innovation Capacity Based on Talent, Knowledge and Ideas” FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  2. Building Innovation Capacity – What Foundation? IP-centric Idea-centric Narrow focus Closed/proprietary Red tape/Process driven Push-oriented Overvaluation Flexible Open for sharing Nimble/Opportunity driven Pull/Push Do a deal! FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  3. Presentation Overview: Current Commercialization Debate University Approaches to IP A Look At Google Carleton Approach FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  4. Commercialization Debate “There is no shortage of opinions and ideas on what should be done … “ FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  5. Commercialization Debate (2): Gaps, gaps and more gaps … Billions invested in research, but … Role of private and public sectors Risk financing is necessary but is it sufficient? What are the best approaches? FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  6. Commercialization Debate (3): 2004 Federal Budget 2004 Ontario Budget NRC network of innovation/commercialization centres NSERC/CIHR Programs Regional initiatives (eg. TEC Edmonton, MaRS) FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  7. University Approaches: “In general, Canadian tech transfer functions and practices tend to be IP-centric and less oriented/integrated to broader regional economic development objectives.” FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  8. University Approaches (2) • UTI (Calgary), TEC Edmonton, IDC (Victoria), Innovations Foundation (Toronto), Genesis Group (St. John’s); • University Industry Liaison Offices (UBC, Waterloo, Univ of Ottawa, etc.); • Less Successful Attempts: GUARD Inc. (Univ of Guelph, UST Inc, (Univ of Saskatchewan) and CUDC, (Carleton University). FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  9. University Approaches – Observations: Performance metrics (license income, patents, number of spin-offs) unintentionally motivate ILO’s to adopt a “picking winners” approach. Revenue generation will prevail; VC role in university research commercialization is overrated; and University role in regional innovation systems not well-understood (i.e., island in the community). FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  10. A Case Study - Google - Could Canada Produce a Google? “In essence, the research resulted in a family of algorithms that assigned numerical weightings to web pages indexed by a search engine” I wouldn’t have bet on it! FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  11. A Google History – Key Inflection Points 1995 1996 1998 1999 NSF Project – DLI Backrub developed Stanford ILO Meeting Stanford files patent Licensing fails Google founded $1M seed round $25M A round – Tier 1 VCs FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  12. Google in Canada? Smarts to innovate (we can compete) How would ILO handle disclosure? (patent/license prospects dim … too competitive … no chance! Would graduate students be encouraged to start company? If so … what would be the odds of getting funds from the right people? … without killing the entrepreneurs Tier 1 VCs make a difference (it’s not just funding!) FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  13. “IP is a narrow sub-set of a university’s capacity for innovation” FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  14. University Intellectual Property – Different Flavours Most IP incremental (basis for partnering) Some IP is product (basis for licensing) Rare IP is platform (basis for spin-off) FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  15. Carleton University Approach Oriented to regional economic development Culture of innovation and entrepreneurship more important than IP management Tech transfer activities aligned with academic goals Ties to local business/technology networks are critical ILO is an access point to Carleton community (experts, facilities and programs) FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  16. Poster of Technology Companies FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  17. Carleton Foundry Program “Helping to stimulate an innovation and entrepreneurial culture on campus by encouraging faculty, students and staff to act on their ideas” FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  18. Innovation Development Fund Student Internships Community Linkages FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  19. References: “Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Their Role in Economic Development, US Department of Commerce, Aug 2003” “Innovation U: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy, Southern Growth Policies Board, 2002” FPTT 2004 TechExpo

  20. Thank you ! P.S. we will be announcing the creation of a new position at Carleton for an Industry Partnership Officer P.S. (2) AUTM 2004 Conference in Quebec City, Nov 10-13th, 2004 FPTT 2004 TechExpo

More Related