\*Please feel free to pass this newsletter to others. If you received this from a friend and would like to be on our list, please drop us a line at in

         
banner4

*Please feel free to pass this newsletter to others. If you received this from a friend and would like to be on our list, please drop us a line at info@arrowcan.com . Your feedback is really valuable to us.*
We are always going to be centered on PEOPLE and not primarily on technologies. So our newsletter is no exception. It is geared to making this community closer and more aware of all of its members (both the BUY side and the SELL side of the equation).

NEWS:

Who's Gone Where

As usual there are a number of changes to report...

*Late Breaking News re India Canada Partnerships

Ryerson University is doing some great things with India

VIEWS:

Will CASL make a difference?

CASL came into effect on July 1, 2014. Its a legislative solution for a technological problem.

CHALLENGES:

Who is Leading Technology Transfer in Canada?

There's been a lot of turnover in the leadership of TTO offices lately. What will the new leaders do differently?

NEWS:

Who's Gone Where

Over the last six months we have become aware of the following changes in the technology transfer scene in Canada. There have been several changes in leadership positions. If you know of other personnel changes please contact us at info@arrowcan.com and we will include them in the next newsletter. Our aim is to increase awareness and connectivity within our Canadian TTO community. Thank you.

ArrowCan Partners Inc. would like to announce that the Ultra Deep Mining Network, Laurentian University, Sudbury ON is a client. We are excited to be part of such an ambitious and important BL-NCE for Canada. We would be happy to tell you about it when we meet.

Angus Livingstone has left the University Industry Liaison Office, University of British Columbia to become the Innovation Catalyst for University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC.
JP Heale is the interim Managing Director, University Industry Liaison Office,University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC.
Stuart Cullum is the Vice President Academic and Chief Operating Officer, Lethbridge College, Lethbridge AB.
Lorne MacGregor has left Lethbridge College to be Director, Applied Research and Commercialization, Lakeland College, Vermillion AB.
Joe Toth from Springboard West has become a private consultant, Regina SK.
Michael Leydon from Springboard West is an ITA at NRC-IRAP, Regina SK.
Divyesh Patel from Springboard West is a Technology Transfer Officer, Office of Research, Innovation and Partnership, University of Regina, Regina SK.
Lynda Dudley from Springboard West is an Office Manager, First Nations Power Authority of Saskatchewan, Regina SK.
Jim George from Springboard West is a Vice President at SREDA, Saskatoon SK.
Lisette Mascarenhas from Springboard West is Director, Research and Development, Saskatchewan Pulse Crop Development Board, Saskatoon SK.
Glen Schuler Managing Director, Industry Liaison Office, University of Saskatchewan has retired, Saskatoon SK.
Robert Parsons is acting Managing Director, Industry Liaison Office, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK.
Sandy Bresciani is Interim Patent Officer, Industry Liaison Office, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK.
Raj Nayak is Interim Start-Up Company Specialist, Industry Liaison Office, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK.
Glen Laba has left the Industry Liaison Office, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK to pursue other interests.
Doug Tastad Director, Innovation Place has retired, Saskatoon SK.
Riya Ganguly is Technology Manager, Technology Transfer Office, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB.
Neeraj Visen has left the Technology Transfer Office, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB to be Licensing Manager, North Dakota State University Research Foundation, Fargo ND USA.
Lisa Cechetto is the new Executive Director, WORLDiscoveries, Western, London ON.
Sally Gray has left the University Industry Partnerships, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo ON to become Director, Office of Research, Innovation and Partnership, University of Regina, Regina SK.
Yaser Kerachian has left University Industry Partnerships, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo ON to be Academic Program Director, Iranian Business School, Tehran Iran.
Tyler Whale Industry Liaison Officer, Catalyst Centre, University of Guelph will be the new President of Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Guelph ON.
Elsie Quaite-Randall has left McMaster Industry Liaison Office, McMaster University, Hamilton ON to be Chief Technology Transfer Officer, Innovation and Partnership Office, Berkeley Lab, Berkeley CA USA.
Gay Yuyitung is acting Executive Director, McMaster Industry Liaison Office, McMaster University, Hamilton ON.
Terry Donaghue Director,Technology Transfer and Industrial Liaison, Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute has retired and is CEO of Donaghue Consulting, Toronto ON.
Jim Banting is the President and CEO PARTEQinnovations, Queen's University, Kingston ON.
Luc Lalande is the Executive Director, Entrepreneurship Hub, University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON.
Shelley King is the CEO, Three Oaks Innovation Inc., University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown PEI.
Gina Funicelli has left the Industry Liaison Office, Saint Mary's University Halifax NS to become Dean, Applied Research and Innovation, Lethbridge College, Lethbridge AB.
Tanya Moxley has left Industry Liaison Office, Saint Mary's University, Halifax NS to pursue other interests.
Kevin Buchan has left the Industry Liaison Office, Dalhousie University to be the Director, Office University and Community Engagement, Saint Mary's University, Halifax NS.
Marli MacNeil Executive Director, BioNova, Halifax NS has left to pursue other interests.

back to TOP...

Late Breaking News

"Report by India Education bureau, Mumbai: Zone Startups / India, a joint venture between Bombay Stock Exchange Institute and Toronto-based Ryerson Futures Inc., in collaboration with the Government of Ontario, Canada and IBM Global Entrepreneurship Program has announced the 2nd Edition of the Next BIG Idea Contest.

The competition seeks to discover India's 5 most innovative technology companies who are looking to leverage a presence in Ontario, Canada, as a vehicle to expand to North America. The winners will incubate their company for two weeks in the globally ranked #5 University Business Incubator in the world, the Digital Media Zone (DMZ) at Ryerson University, in Toronto, including flights and hotels." (Canada-India Business Council Daily News Brief, July 31, 2014)

back to TOP...

VIEWS:

Will CASL make a difference?

The new Canadian Anti Spam Legislation (CASL) took effect on July 1, 2014. The intent of the new law is quite clear and seems benign enough. Clearly it is designed to ease the onslaught of SPAM messages into our in-boxes every day. On the surface one would think: Who can argue with that?

I have three questions though that may initially seem a bit prosaic:
How will we actually measure whether SPAM is diminishing?
How will we judge the cost-to-benefit ratio of this legislation? Make no mistake there is a cost!
Are there other ways to achieve the same or better results?

The success of any legislation is usually measured by the amount of court action that results and eventually by the overall societal effect on our daily lives. So far, the amount of unwanted e-mail traffic has actually gone up as people scramble to obtain my consent to send me even more mail than before. Personally I find that annoying, and I apologize to each of you for having had to obtain your consent before sending this newsletter to you. But it may be just a short term effect that will settle down. It is far too early to tell whether there will be any court cases. Presumably when the first of these actually comes to the fore one can judge more appropriately what the effect of this law will be. My personal view is that it will not make much of a difference because the major offenders are not Canadian residents. Although the law applies to everyone who would send spam to a Canadian, the non-residents are going to be really hard to catch and prosecute. The Nigerian princes wanting large sums of money or those selling pills to enlarge certain parts of my anatomy are so swift to change their servers and to move from country to country that it will be virtually impossible to charge them in the first place let alone bring them to answer in a Canadian court of law. Then there are the innocent members of a university where someone breaks into their account and sends such messages to everyone on the server without the knowledge of the hacked individual. How will that be reduced? I'm sure all of us have got e-mails from ourselves selling something that we had no idea about. Who will be responsible for that? Isn't there a danger of the law being abused? Finally, spammers are also getting very sophisticated. It is not a static target by any means. Recently I got a lot of e-mails from ***@gmail.com. Creating a filter for that one was a real challenge. I found it very difficult to remove what I wanted to remove without removing all the gmails from anyone – legitimate or otherwise - for example.

With all of that complication there is always the question of cost-to-benefit ratio. No one seems to be concentrating on the costs of becoming compliant. We have had to spend weeks making lists and making sure that we have consent from everyone to whom we want to send this simple newsletter. The costs to small legitimate business is crippling. We have all heard about how the internet helps level the playing field for small businesses. We all know how important small and medium businesses are to our economy. What have we done to our small business competitive edge for Canadian businesses by enacting this law? Have we actually helped Canadian companies or given a competitive edge to other nations? Who will pay for the added costs to SMEs of doing business in this way in Canada?

Finally, I come to my last question. Is there a better way to achieve the same or better outcome? I believe that there already was such an avenue. There are a number of technological ways to reduce the spam that one gets in one's inbox. There are filters which enable one to automatically fine tune what one sees and what one does with the rest. There are external mail list filters that only allow those on your approved mailing list to send you e-mail. I have used BOXBE for example for some years and I find it great. Above all it is free. The advantage of such technological solutions is that as the spammers get more and more sophisticated so do the filter designers.

I believe that in enacting the CASL our Canadian government has actually inadvertently failed us by attempting to provide us with a legislative solution that is draconian and frozen in time to a technologically solvable problem while incurring a great competitive cost to all Canadians directly or indirectly in the process. Your own personal views are always welcome. Tell us how CASL has affected you.

back to TOP...

CHALLENGES:

"Who is Leading Technology Transfer in Canada?

The News section of this newsletter bears witness to the amount of change that seems to constantly plague the field of technology transfer and commercialization at universities across Canada. Looking back over past issues (archived on our website) this does not seem to be a one time phenomenon. Truth is that this is often just a job for most people – a stop along the way to some other 'real' career. Stagnation in the leadership has been blamed for this situation in the past. Recently it is the top positions at several institutions that have changed. In the last year alone we estimate that 20 TTO leadership positions at Canadian universities and colleges have changed. Though this is tragic in one way, it offers us an opportunity in Canada that I believe we should seize. It would appear that the old order is slowly but surely changing and yielding to new talent and new perspectives. What will that new direction be? Who will lead it? How will they shape the changes? How will they measure success? Forming answers to these questions is something in which we can all participate. Working in isolation it is difficult sometimes to conceive of ways to do our jobs differently. But we don't need to do that. Let's all participate in an ongoing national dialogue.

The time is ripe for each of us to step up to the plate and make some bold moves. Some are already doing that. The University of Ottawa and the University of Manitoba for example have already put out new models for sharing technologies with industry. Many others are trying similarly bold new things. It is too early to make definitive statements about the probability that these initiatives will catch on but the early indicators look promising and the mere fact that they and their institutions have chosen to make some bold inroads in novel directions is creditable. Its time not just to redecorate the rooms in a condemned building but to really build a new one.

We have to think of new ways to do our business and create new definitions of what success in our profession looks like. Royalty rates and contract terms that are now decades old and that speak to an era when pharmaceutical companies ruled the early technology landscape need to be rethought. No doubt the best indicator of future potential is past performance. I don't mean to suggest that we simply throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. I am exploring ways to use the Freedom of Information mandate to extract real executed older contracts that were made by Canadian universities, hospitals and government agencies a decade ago to conceptually create the equivalent of Onecle.com – a database of all sorts of contracts in the US. It could give the smaller offices a source from which to draw some ideas as they craft new contracts with the new realities in mind. I am looking for collaborators in this endeavour. Please contact me if you would be interested.

In my opinion a more collaborative early engagement achieved via long cultivated relationships of trust and friendship with key industry players to find out what really keeps industry awake at night would be a path to pursue in the future. People not companies form the basis of this sort of relationship. When they move from one position to another the relationship moves as well. Will professionals in our TTOs one day be measured by the breadth and depth of their connection network and the longevity of their relationships with key players? Will the success of the office be measured by how much it is able to help researchers with the industrial relevance of their research and to be able to connect investigators to the right industry players for the validation of what they are saying? Will the success of the leaders be measured by lower turn over in the office? Are there ways we can all band together to offer bundled technologies from disparate institutions that form a proper IP fence for a particular product area to industry? The NCEs were supposed to do that but most of us would agree I think that this approach did not succeed in this particular dimension. Is there a structure that could help them in this area? Should we remain focused on North American markets for our technologies or should we embrace the new reality and look to markets in Asia and the Middle East? How can we do that without building ties to receptor communities there? What will those deals look like? Is Europe effectively dead to us now? Why not become a part of the technological solution they are seeking and in so doing build some great and lasting ties to key players there as we help them? What is the role we need to ascribe to technology transfer in the burgeoning area of Social Innovation? These and others are all questions I hope our new leadership in the Technology Transfer Community ponders as it ascends to its leadership place and charts our new directions. I am very excited about what the future holds for us.

back to TOP...

1px