Andrew Bond MD, MHA, FCFP’s Post

John Ruffolo - I think we need to consider that IP is rapidly becoming more complicated and contentious. See https://lnkd.in/guGV5kRf ~ whereby the mosaicking of Prior Art is going to get very interesting! Likewise, the impacts of AI on IP are yet to be determined, see this innocent little tool, https://lnkd.in/gRvYPzXU, perhaps not so innocent when it comes to the volumes of applications the CIPO and USPTO will soon be processing, or are now!?!? When it comes to the "ownership and control of data" [IP] there is yet another "twist" to AI on IP ~ synthetic data. Synthetic data could blur the lines of originality and non-obviousness, as AI-generated content/data may inadvertently replicate existing concepts, further complicating the task of assessing whether an invention is truly novel or non-obvious. Synthetic data may also lead to new disputes in IP law as it becomes unclear who owns the rights to data generated by AI. Questions arise around whether synthetic data, used to train models that contribute to inventions, might also constitute prior art. If so, this adds another layer of complexity to patent applications. What does this all mean? IP, as we know it, could become a quagmire of "costly" legal gymnastics. These be the battle of giants, tread carefully around them, focus on proprietary technologies, trade secrets, and deft execution ~ and double-down on FTO (freedom to operate).

Thank you John Ruffolo for sharing this insightful view and summary below; and, Jim Balsillie for curating this view together with the @Counsil of Canadian Innovators. We become what we focus on. My take: Problem: Incrementalism in policy and influence The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts that Canada will rank last among advanced economies in per-capita real GDP growth over the next four decades....a challenge that has already been a topic of discussion for decades. The country's labor productivity has stagnated, with real GDP per capita showing minimal growth over the past ten years. Wage parity has been recently expressed in comparison to U.S. wages elsewhere as 50% of the US rate. This stagnation is partly structural...attributed to Canada's heavy reliance on housing and immigration for economic growth, rather than focusing on enhancing productivity. The construction sector, in particular, has seen no productivity growth over the past forty years, and its expansion has negatively impacted overall productivity metrics. Solution: Metrics to convert desired outputs to policy include: Total Factor Productivity How an economy uses all inputs to generate output. Policy: R&D tax credits and innovation grants targeted at sectors that drive TFP. Labour Productivity GDP / hour reflects how effectively labor is used. Policy: Implement upskilling focused on high-demand skills and provide subsidies for SMEs for productivity-enhancement. Average Cost Reduction High-cost environments prevent efficiency. Industry clusters can achieve cost efficiencies at scale. Policy: Regional clusters to leverage shared infrastructure, labor, and resources. Market Concentration Ratios (CR4 or HHI) While creating strong global players, high concentration stifles competition. Where concentration ratios are too high, competition requires policies that lower entry barriers and support smaller players. Policy: Encourage new market entrants in consolidated sectors. Capital Intensity Capital concentration in low-growth sectors highlights a need to redirect investments to high-productivity areas. Policy: Shift capital towards sectors with high productivity potential. #CanadaEconomy #ProductivityGrowth #Innovation #EconomicPolicy #TotalFactorProductivity #LaborProductivity #ScaleEconomies #TechInnovation #EconomicDevelopment #CanadaBusiness #Investment #SustainableGrowth #GovernmentPolicy #DigitalTransformation #AdvancedManufacturing #CleanEnergy #FutureOfWork #CompetitiveAdvantage

The Globe and Mail today published (subscription required) a must-read OpED written by Jim Balsillie (cofounder of Council of Canadian Innovators | Conseil canadien des innovateurs). This should serve as the basis for any public policy on how to solve Canada’s productivity crisis. There are far too many nuggets of gold to list but here are key quotes. “We live in a knowledge economy, where value is derived from intangible assets. This economy is epitomized by the global race for intellectual-property (IP) ownership and control of data, transforming global markets into a new landscape, where ideas are owned, data are the new natural resource and algorithms are the new machinery and equipment. Canadian discourse on productivity and our policy making need to reflect that reality. Instead, discourse on the productivity crisis remains stuck in the 1970s, awash with diagnoses and solutions that have no bearing on what moves the productivity dial in the 21st-century economy. If we have any chance of fixing Canada’s productivity challenge, first we must fix how we talk about it.” “Companies that own valuable IP and have requisite data assets scale more easily, pursue or create new markets more quickly and have the capacity to block new entrants completely, including by acquiring early-stage companies on the cheap. Canada’s businesses own dismal amounts of IP, control dismal stocks of data assets and therefore lack the opportunity to invest gainfully.” “But in the contemporary global economy, simply investing in new equipment and machinery is not a source of productivity gains because the same machinery, equipment and capital are also available to low-cost countries. For Canada, deploying this strategy, let alone with government subsidies, is a race to the economic bottom.” ”Lack of competitive intensity” is not the reality for Canada’s entrepreneurs. They already compete globally and face intense competition, not just from direct competitors but also because of strategic behaviour from smart countries that work hand-in-glove with their industries to advance their economic interests.” https://lnkd.in/gHZjZPQw

Jim Balsillie (Co-Founder of the Council of Canadian Innovators) delivers must-read insights in today’s Globe and Mail OpEd—essential for anyone committed to solving Canada’s productivity crisis and shaping future public policy. “We live in a knowledge economy, where value is derived from intangible assets. This economy is epitomized by the global race for intellectual-property (IP) ownership and control of data, transforming global markets into a new landscape, where ideas are owned, data are the new natural resource and algorithms are the new machinery and equipment. Canadian discourse on productivity and our policy making need to reflect that reality. Instead, discourse on the productivity crisis remains stuck in the 1970s, awash with diagnoses and solutions that have no bearing on what moves the productivity dial in the 21st-century economy. If we have any chance of fixing Canada’s productivity challenge, first we must fix how we talk about it.” “Companies that own valuable IP and have requisite data assets scale more easily, pursue or create new markets more quickly and have the capacity to block new entrants completely, including by acquiring early-stage companies on the cheap. Canada’s businesses own dismal amounts of IP, control dismal stocks of data assets and therefore lack the opportunity to invest gainfully.” “But in the contemporary global economy, simply investing in new equipment and machinery is not a source of productivity gains because the same machinery, equipment and capital are also available to low-cost countries. For Canada, deploying this strategy, let alone with government subsidies, is a race to the economic bottom.” ”Lack of competitive intensity” is not the reality for Canada’s entrepreneurs. They already compete globally and face intense competition, not just from direct competitors but also because of strategic behaviour from smart countries that work hand-in-glove with their industries to advance their economic interests.” https://lnkd.in/eVaSV-4A

Couldn’t agree more with Jim Balsillie on his opinion piece in the Globe and mail today. Canada’s productivity challenge isn’t a new story, but it’s definitely time we look at it differently. We’ve been stuck on outdated economic models from the ‘70s—thinking about things like “output per worker” and investing in more machinery. But in today’s world where ideas, intellectual property (IP), and data are the real game-changers, that old approach just doesn’t cut it. Entrepreneurs are stepping onto a global stage that’s more competitive than ever. Other countries are smartly backing their industries, giving them an edge, while many Canadian businesses are held back because they don’t own their IP or control their data. This makes it tough to innovate and grow the way we know we can. It’s time to stop trying to solve new challenges with old solutions. By accepting the realities of the 21st-century economy and focusing on what really adds value today—like IP and data—we can overcome Canada’s productivity hurdles and pave the way for a more prosperous future. It’s time to get out there and innovate. #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #AI #DataDriven #GlobalBusiness #TradeAgreements #CanadianBusiness #TechPolicy #FutureOfWork #DigitalTransformation #GrowthMindset #CompetitiveAdvantage #AIInfrastructure #GlobalExpansion #PolicyAdvocacy https://lnkd.in/eaH3bJTq

Sunday Read: Canada, We Need to Get This Right. Jim Balsillie dropped an Op-ed in this week's The Globe and Mail on why Canada’s productivity problem persists "...because in Canada productivity has not only been studied to death, it’s been studied to puzzlement. The real emergency is our repeated use of 20th-century economic logic and our inability to talk about productivity like it’s 2024." If you’re in Canada’s policy, politics, or public service scene, this one’s a must-read. Here is a high-level overview: ⬇ The Old Playbook Doesn’t Work: Let’s stop the endless talk about “investing in machinery” or breaking down a few provincial trade barriers. These were solutions for 1974, not 2024. Today’s economy is about controlling IP, data, and the intangibles that generate real value. Balsillie makes a clear case: if we’re serious about productivity, we need to start building infrastructure and policies that support this new reality. Here’s Why This Matters: Canada’s economic future hinges on whether we can grasp this shift. Global competitors like the U.S. and the EU are doubling down on their own companies, IP protections, and digital infrastructure. If we don’t get it right, Canada risks being left behind in the global knowledge economy, and that’s not just bad news for “business.” It affects our cost of living, our opportunities, and the long term health of our economy. The Bottom Line: It’s time to let go of legacy thinking and embrace what it takes to compete today. So grab a coffee, take in Balsillie’s piece, and ask yourself: is Canada finally ready to talk about productivity like it’s 2024? https://lnkd.in/gZ6jq6xd Florian Villaumé ICD.D Owen Sagness, ICD.D Jeff White, FCPA,FCA, ICD.D Brad Colwill Sonya Shorey Alison Nankivell Amber French Christina Fox Joelle Foster Kelly Fournel Jonathan Lipoth Terry Rock Tom Viinikka Michael Mahon Peter Cowan Jill Tipping, FCPA, FCA

In recent years, Canada has been struggling with a productivity problem. While there has been a lot of talk around this issue, there has been less discussion around potential solutions. That's why I'm excited to be rolling up my sleeves and joining the thought leaders Public Policy Forum's Canada's Growth Summit 2024 on April 10-11. During the summit, we'll be discussing the critical role of investment, technology adoption, and policy reform in revitalizing productivity. It'll be exciting to be part of the conversation and to be actively contributing to solutions, rather than just rehashing the problem statement. In addition to the Summit, I'll also be attending a pre-dinner hosted by the Canadian Real Estate Association, where we'll be exploring innovative ways to increase the housing supply. These are complex public policy problems, but I'm looking forward to being part of the discussion and working towards a path forward. #productivity #investment #technology #policyreform #housing #publicpolicy #thoughtleaders #solutions

The latest from the Globe and Mail's business commentary, by Eugene Lang: Why Ottawa won’t come to grips with Canada’s productivity problem. Canada’s weak productivity growth is not new. It is age-old and has been well-documented in Ottawa policy circles for a generation.

This has some interesting analysis of why Canada hasn't moved the needle on productivity since the 1990s despite repeated reports and warnings, though I think there is a lot more to some of the reasons given. Lang breaks down the lack of action to three main reasons: 1. "Federal policy change is often driven less by the importance of the issue and more by a sense of urgency" 2. "Persistent productivity weakness suggests deep-seated structural problems in the Canadian economy" which require risky "paradigm-shifting policy change" & governments are highly risk averse. 3. "When governments do get down to discussing innovation, the regional political imperative rears its head". These points are have a lot too them. However, I think the second one doesn't go far enough in explaining the lack of action, and the third has benefits that need to be acknowledged even as they come with drawbacks. When it comes to risk aversion, it is worth stating explicitly that the status quo works for a lot of Canada's economic elite. Lang points out that "the irony here is that over the years the federal government has routinely chided Canadian business for insufficient investment in R&D, inadequate pursuit of foreign markets and weak entrepreneurialism, all of which boils down to risk-taking." This just doesn't go far enough in pointing out that established and economically as well as politically powerful interests are A-OK with the trajectory we are on, despite the costs to our well being and quality of life. As Peter Nicholson written, Canadian businesses "continue to prosper and will not change behaviour patterns that have proven successful for decades, unless market conditions force a change". (https://lnkd.in/gU_gkiN9). When it comes to regional political imperatives, I don't think these are anywhere near as negative as many make out. Place-based policy making are a big focus elsewhere including the EU, UK, and in the US's IRA and Chips Act. This has been rooted in a recognition that just piling on more funding to leading regions has actually been a drag on growth - especially in the context of housing challenges where high skilled workers can't move to cities with high productivity companies. There are diminishing returns to the agglomeration effect. Broader-based funding also has an important political role in ensuring political buy-in for innovation spending outside of the leading cities, not to mention a strong social rationale in helping reduce inequality between regions. I think Canada has a strong track record in this - and a country with a far more even economy than the UK or the US. Yes this will have come with inefficiencies but I think the positives need to be weighed in the scale too.

This is a more balanced and insightful description of Canada's productivity challenges, than one usually reads here. However, the picture is still incomplete at best. First, Canadian productivity has grown - absenting a couple of bumps - steadily since 1960, and accelerated significantly starting in 2002. I believe it is important to keep at bay the Chicken Little rhetoric that tends to surround this topic. We are nowhere near as competitive as we should be be, but countering some far-right armchair rhetoric out there, this is not a failed economy. We also have to be very careful when comparing the GDP dynamics of different countries. Unique factors like population size, geography, proximity to markets, history, etc. can vary hugely between an Ireland and a Canada, for example. Where the article gets it right is in identifying that "Canada’s largest organizations are comfortably part of stable oligopolies..." and that an aversion on the part of business leaders to investment in people and innovation is slowing us down. It also gets it right in pointing the finger at a high-friction government regulatory environment (at every level of government), and terrible management of big projects whether digital (think Phoenix) or major infrastructure. Most of the latter sits with the provinces. Some big misses: - Few specifics (other than education) on exactly how businesses are supposed to behave differently. What's the plan? - A failure to acknowledge that business is complicit with government in national failures like our anti-competitive business landscape, and massive cost overruns on large projects across the country. - No mention of failure to coordinate and reduce the friction of interprovincial capital, goods, and labour flows. - A general overweighting of government vs business as responsible for our underperformance. - No mention of the historical and cultural realities that keep us mired in our 'hewer of wood and drawer of water' mindset (see: https://lnkd.in/gzvksgpB) We need a complete rethink of how business and government work together to increase the incentives and the behaviours that would accelerate national productivity, while reducing the friction and drag of regulation, history, provincialism, and the paralyzing coziness between government and big oligopolies. I think three starting points would be fruitful: - A complete restructuring of our educational strategies especially in our universities and trade schools, but high school as well; - The elimination of inter-provincial capital, trade, and labour movement frictions; - An aggressive attack on the structures that encourage oligopolies, coupled with a New Deal-scale strategy of investment in training and technology for small to midsized firms to fuel creative destruction. https://lnkd.in/g_y6K5pF