Great piece. A couple of other things the venerable Howard Hughes Medical Institute is doing well: reviewing its policies to reduce the paperwork that has slowed the exchange of research materials within the non-profit and academic sectors and doing the same around its scientists’ private-sector relationships. The continued snail’s pace of translational research needs this kind of thoughtful scientific and legal scrutiny.rnrnAnd, while you’re thinking about HHMI, consider another thing they do brilliantly: telling their researchers’ stories. The HHMI Bulletin is a thing of beauty and inspired design in print — and not so bad online as well. With a former bench scientist turned editor at the helm, it’s worth a read. Check it out at http://www.hhmi.org/bulletinrn rnrn

Great piece. A couple of other things the venerable Howard Hughes Medical Institute is doing well: reviewing its policies to reduce the paperwork that has slowed the exchange of research materials within the non-profit and academic sectors and doing the same around its scientists' private-sector relationships. The continued snail's pace of translational research needs this kind of thoughtful scientific and legal scrutiny.And, while you're thinking about HHMI, consider another thing they do brilliantly: telling their researchers' stories. The HHMI Bulletin is a thing of beauty and inspired design in print — and not so bad online as well. With a former bench scientist turned editor at the helm, it's worth a read. Check it out at http://www.hhmi.org/bulletin

I remember in the late 1990s, RIM was deciding whether to open its own manufacturing plant in Waterloo for its popular BlackBerry. Since Nokia and a few other “smartphone” vendors were already licensing the BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Solution) at the time, there were whispers that it would be a great M&A exit for RIM (e.g. why continue if you could exit [assuming that is up to you]?). Today, RIM’s annual revenue is USD $11 billion with 80% of that from selling hardware.I think of that, and then I think about how RIM paid USD $612.5M for patent infringement due to prior art – to be fair, it was RIM’s lawyers who missed a crucial detail when presenting a key exhibit to the jurors. However, the bottom line, as history will remember, is that RIM infringed NTP’s patent.So, what is “game-changing innovation”? What is “breakthrough”? Do you really need either to “succeed”?If RIM really was successful because of its innovation with the BlackBerry enterprise end-to-end solution, why is 80% of its revenue from hardware, which is only the endpoint of that platform? If RIM was successful because of its IP, why did it compensate NTP, a patent-troll company that neither innovate nor commercialise technology?The answer, of course, is because commercial success stands apart from intellectual property and innovation (yes, you still need them). Without understanding the fundamental differences between the three, and their intricate relationship, a company would miss multi-billion dollar opportunities (e.g. not bringing BlackBerry into the consumer electronics segment because critics think consumers don’t like QWERTY keyboards). For this reason, there is such a disconnect between fundamental research, applied science, and commercialisation.This is why the Ontario government committed CAD $3.2B to support the Ontario Commercialisation Network (OCN) in order to create jobs and accomplish the goals in the Ontario Innovation Agenda. As one of the provincial innovation centres in Ontario, MaRS is connecting entrepreneurs to capital, advice, education, and insight.

I remember in the late 1990s, RIM was deciding whether to open its own manufacturing plant in Waterloo for its popular BlackBerry. Since Nokia and a few other “smartphone” vendors were already licensing the BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Solution) at the time, there were whispers that it would be a great M&A exit for RIM. Today, RIM's annual revenue is $11 billion with 80% of that from selling hardware.I think of that, and then I think about how RIM paid USD $612.5M for patent infringement due to prior art – to be fair, it was RIM's lawyers who missed a crucial detail when presenting a key exhibit to the jurors. However, the bottom line, as history will remember, is that RIM infringed NTP's patent.So, what is “game-changing innovation”? What is “breakthrough”? Do you really need either to “succeed”?If RIM really was successful because of its BlackBerry (software) solution, why is 80% of its revenue not from software, and why could it not prove there was prior art preceeding NTP?The answer, of course, is because commercial success stands apart from intellectual property and innovation. Without understanding the fundamental differences between the three, a company would miss multi-billion dollar opportunities (e.g. bringing BlackBerry into the consumer electronics segment).